Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sicknature (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Snowgoons. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient, however this is a viable AtD. Star Mississippi 14:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sicknature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not seem to have notability outside of Snowgoons. No indication of passing WP:BAND, and not one source supports WP:GNG. Perhaps there are some Danish sources I haven't come across Mbdfar (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Denmark.  𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘈𝘺𝘩𝘢𝘯07   02:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article was deleted before for a reason. Son Of The Desert (Talk) 13:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What reason would that be? You need to provide a valid reason and not refer to something like that as a reason. Royal88888 (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there is enough coverage and he meets WP:MUSICBIO. He is also part of producer group Snowgoons so check news coverage on that as well. Check 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.Royal88888 (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal88888: there is absolutely not enough coverage. You just posted a bunch of junk links. One of them is about a bicycle - did you even read them? Snowgoons seem notable, Sicknature is not notable outside of the group. Sicknature does not qualify for their own article unless you can find WP:RS (check WP:RSP) that directly cover Sicknature themself in depth (independent of Snowgoons). Mbdfar (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry didn't mean to add that one and one was a duplicate...I have removed 3 and added 2 different ones.Royal88888 (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Snowgoons, the only sourcing available on Sicknature specifically is clearly unreliable and as such he fails WP:GNG, but the group he is a part of seems notable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.