Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Signal Hill Transmission

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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Signal Hill Transmission (edit | talk | history  | protect | delete  | links | watch | logs | views) (delete ) – (View log)

Non-notable band; fails WP:MUSIC. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

• Weak keep. The article needs work, but they do have an album available on a major label. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete: insufficient 3rd party notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete: fails WP:BAND/WP:MUSIC. -- 68.183.104.7 (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete and redirect to Signal Hill, Newfoundland and Labrador, because this commonly refers to the first wireless transatlantic message. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• It is not clear from the above discussion what sort of research any of the discussants did to help to determine whether or not this band is notable. See WP:JNN. I saw at the band's bio on CD Baby that there were many reviews quoted from music mags and alternative newsweeklies, so I did further investigation. This band, it turns out, has received a reasonable amount of press coverage, with their albums being reviewed, with a report of their winning a radio station contest, and with a report about being included on a celebrity playlist. I've added several third-party sources just now. (Also, a Rolling Stone editor apparently wrote a positive review of the band—see this report—but I have not been able to reliably source that just yet.) There's enough there now for WP:GNG, or WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep, sources now in article meet WP:GNG. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 04:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep Enough substantial coverage to warrant inclusion. They're not U2, yet, but they've got a lot more going for them than just a myspace page :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep. It looks fine now. JBsupreme (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2009 (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.