Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kowalski (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kowalski (band)

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

Band that doesn't meet the notability requirements of WP:BAND. Only a couple of mentions in local papers. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't only received 'a couple of mentions in local papers' their well known across the UK, Ireland, Japan etc. They've had Snow Patrol's singer, the BBC, The Fly Magazine saying amazing things about them on the radio. They've had a load of headline shows, supported some massive acts, a lot of festival performances, had a film made about them, released 2 well received E.P's/albums and singles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by UndercoverSilverDust (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appear to be an up and coming band, but have yet to arrive. Lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources (and I emphasize reliable) to establish notability. No prejudice to recreation in the future if they gain more coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of this material is unreferenced. I'm willing to believe that additional independent coverage does exist - though I did search and found nothing - but this article will need to provide them to survive. Several Times (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2011 (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.