Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead by April (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 Speedy keep

Dead by April

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

Non-notable band, fails Wikipedia:Notability -- Casmith_789 (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The only place where I could find a review of the band's material is on Sputnik Music, but that website has a mix of professional and non-professional reviews. If it can be determined the reviews of the band there are indeed professional, I'd say keep; if not, delete. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there an admin around that can compare how the old page was (before it was speedy deleted) to how it is now? Thanks :) -- Casmith_789 (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the text is entirely different; the deleted version was promotional in tone, and even referred to the band by saying "we". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple articles on other-language Wikipedias; the Swedish article at least has a third-party source, this article from TV4. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It could be that coverage mainly consists of Swedish-language sources, but I have no problems in finding reviews and articles about them in regular Swedish press, such as here in Expressen, here in Helsingborgs Dagblad and here in Dala-Demokraten. Tomas e (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if there are this many third-party sources it is notable, and as I can see I was the only person advocating delete? I would like to withdraw my nomination, thanks :) -- Casmith_789 (talk) 10:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: see Tom above - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:16, 1 October 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.