- 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chameleonize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Procedural nomination - was originally tagged for speedy but refuted. Article editor has placed a comment asserting notability/importance of the band at the article talk page. For discussion by the wider community. --VS talk 11:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Quite aside from that the tone of article is about one cut above a Myspace entry - and it's telling that of the miniscule 41 G-hits, most of the returns are Myspace, blog and YouTube entries - I can't see anything suggesting that this outfit fulfills any of the criteria of WP:BAND for notability. Any reliable sources out there which would hit WP:GNG? I couldn't find any. Ravenswing 11:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original speedy tagger. The band is unsigned, and there doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 14:47, 23 July 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.