Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year of Desolation

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 keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Year of Desolation

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

Questionably notable and improvable as there's nothing currently here to suggest satisfying bands notability guidelines, not even minimally, and my searches found nothing better than this and this. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, I'm not sure about this one yet. Here's what I've got: [1] from Blabbermouth (just noticed this is already linked above), [2] from Exclaim!, and [3] from Journal Review Online, which I think is a local Indiana newspaper. There's also [4] from theprp.com, which I think may be reliable (Billboard quoted it, and the Los Angeles Times covered it). However, I'll wait to see what others say. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND #1. Source examples include: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. The band is also covered here in New Wave of American Heavy Metal, but the coverage is too short to be used to demonstrate notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NorthAmerica. Sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources has been demonstrated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2016 (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.