Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/By a Thread (band)

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By a Thread (band)

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

Article about a band which makes a potentially valid claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC, depending on how much importance you attach to Revelation Records for the purposes of criterion #5, but completely drops the ball for reliably sourcing it: the referencing here is to (a) their own page on the record label's website, (b) last.fm and (c) discogs.com, none of which counts a whit toward getting a band over WP:GNG. A band does not get an inclusion freebie under NMUSIC just because the passage of one NMUSIC criterion is claimed; it gets included or excluded on the basis of the sourcing you can provide to verify the claim, but none of the "sourcing" here passes muster. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although they're signed to a record label, there's nothing else better convincing yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:55, 9 February 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.