Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infected (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 keep. Article hijacked and reverted Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infected (band)

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

Does not seem notable, no sources, looked at WP:MUSIC and does not meet any of those criteria, written as promotion M.manary (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edited spelling, longer google search, still not finding any of the criteria met.M.manary (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Written like an advertisement, and no external sources seem to have commented on them. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert to the earlier version with the other band. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Revert to earlier verison - The article as nominated would actually be eligible for a speedy deletion as it doesn't even make a credible claim to notability. However, the current article is about a different band than one that can be found earlier in the article history. See this version which is about a different band. I've not investigated the other band, but the referencing in the article does include sourcing to the Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've reverted to the earlier version that's about an actually notable band. Has coverage in Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop, so that makes it pretty cut-and-dried for me. Jenks24 (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being covered in an encyclopedia is a clear and solid argument for a keep vote. Cavarrone (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2012 (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.