Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimatum (American band) (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimatum (American band)

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

No notability and self-advertising. This looks like it was recreated by someone associated with the band after the first delete. References were added to pad an appearance of notability. Basileias (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak keep - to be honest I would think the article could be speedily deleted, because nothing has changed since the 2011 AfD to make the band more notable! Sionk (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to 'weak keep', now I understand the restoration process etc. that's taken place. There's not enough info about the HM Magazine sources to judge with any certainty what the offline sources contain (the recent online HM articles are heavily promotional). However, they've been going for 20 years and evidently still getting some coverage. Sionk (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is considerably different to the version that was deleted last time, so speedy deletion as a G4 would not be appropriate. --Michig (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the prior comment meant nothing changed in the way of "notability," however I thought it fair to open the process for further scrutiny outside myself. Whether the article stays or not, sleep will not be lost by me. Basileias (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the person who worked on restoring the article that was [after a deletion review], the article meets the criteria of WP:MUSIC as detailed in that discussion. Rowe was distributed by Diamante Music Group, a large Christian music distributor, in the 90's and has featured other Christian metal acts like Mortification. At the very least, they meet the "1 or more Independent Labels" qualification of #5. 5minutes (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article now seems amply sourced. Oculi (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oculi. The article is now fairly well-sourced. Majoreditor (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - HM Magazine has a great deal of non-trivial coverage. Also per 5minutes' criteria. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Article is now faily sourced JayJay^{What did I do?} 03:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a lot of work has been done to have it meet WP:BAND. Mkdw ^talk 21:52, 3 January 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.