Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plow United
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 speedy keep. Has received significant coverage, and is no longer inactive. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plow United[edit]
- Plow United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A defunct band that never achieved more than a regional reputation isn't notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNate (talk • contribs)
- Keep - Actually, the article states that Plow reformed in 2011, which I didn't realize. Listing them as "hardcore punk" is a bit of a laugh. Fairly large underground pop-punk band of the 1990s second wave of American punk. Carrite (talk) 02:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No longer defunct, it appears, but regardless there seems to be enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BAND #1. Beyond local items [1][2][3][4][5][6], there are two Punknews.org staff reviews [7][8] (considered reliable by WikiProject Albums), interviews in professional publications [9][10], along with some shorter pieces [11][12][13]. Gong show 02:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Gongshow. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The band has received plenty of coverage, e.g. (some are probably already listed above) [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Enough to have a decently-sourced article. --Michig (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2013 (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.