Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yacøpsæ (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 delete. I'll restore and move to the draft space on request if someone can demonstrate there are paper magazine sources for this band that weren't online, and they can commit to incorporating those into the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yacøpsæ

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 09:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nice layout but fails WP:MUSIC. --RexPatricius (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete barring reasonable evidence of sources. Paper magazines are still significant coverage in Germany, so I'd accept those. Did they get in the DAC at all? - David Gerard (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't two albums on Slap-a-Ham Records and Power It Up Records and two shows on the Maryland Deathfest and several reviews in Germany's 27-year-old indie mag "Ox" enough? Well, you will know. Kind regards, Grueslayer Let's talk. 21:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline is WP:NMUSIC. If they have lots of reviews in lots of papers that might count, and particularly if they toured internationally and there's proper third-party review coverage at the WP:RS (so, not blog) level. A band of this history surely left a paper trail behind them ... but it needs to be detailed in the article, not just be possible - David Gerard (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to criteria #1 and #5. Kind regards, Grueslayer Let's talk. 08:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:11, 1 October 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.