Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spit Like This

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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spit Like This

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

Non-notable band with an article containing more puffery than a very large bowl of Sugar Puffs, despite several attempts to try and clean it up into something manageable over the years. A search for sources brings up passing mentions like this, which describes them as merely "a local band" despite being around for 10 years. While we normally consider the potential to improve an article is sufficient, in this case I feel it really is best to nuke the thing and start again from scratch. (Disclosure: I discovered the article through Wikipediocracy's "Crap Articles" thread) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although I find this amusing, hahahaha, my searches found nothing better at all than a few passing mentions here and there, certainly nothing for a noticeably better article yet especially with the article's current sources. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked 4 of the refs and they weren't references, I will assume the remainder of the refs are of a similar calibre. Szzuk (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2015 (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.