Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blind With Rain

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. Sr13 03:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blind With Rain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable band. My speedy tag was removed with a claim that the link to the magazine is a claim of notability, although I strongly disagree with that. However, other than that, there are no reliable sources. I can find nothing about them in the archives at the magazine's website at http://www.industrialnation.com/, but then, they seem to be having server problems. Can't tell how far back the cited issue was. Google search returns 150 hits. They have an entry at allmusic.com, but it's virtually blank, and contains nothing about any releases. They have a page at artistdirect.com which lists their sole release and provides no further information. This band does not meet WP:BAND. Corvus cornix 01:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nominator's web search, this article cannot assert notability. There are also only primary sources to assert that notability, which does not help. (→zelzany - uses a new sig) 01:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. I add that the article is the creation of Colour escape, a single user account. Victoriagirl 02:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, not passing WP:BAND. tomasz. 13:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The magazine citation is technically a claim to notability, making it ineligible for speedy deletion (in my opinion). Whether it is a good enough claim to notability to avoid deletion will be decided in this discussion. --Ginkgo100^talk 23:02, 13 June 2007 (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.