Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidewalks and Skeletons

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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sidewalks and Skeletons

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

I can't find any coverage outside of listings at places like Soundcloud. No WP:RSes, seems to fail WP:GNG pretty clearly. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:GNG  Adrian^[232] 00:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself reviewed this at NPP today and found nothing to suggest solid notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review of my edits. I have added more references/citations to the article in question. Themusicman57 —Preceding undated comment added 08:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've taken a look at the new sources. Two of them (Shove It and Antiquiet) I had already seen, and I don't think they meet the standards for reliable sources. Neither appears to have proper editorial oversight; rather, they both seem to be blogs (note that both are running on Wordpress). I can't find any sort of staff page for either of them. Looking at Intravenous Magazine, which I hadn't seen, I believe it may have same issues: no real editorial oversight, and it's running on blogger.com. Here's the staff page for that site: [1]. There's at least an editor listed there, but on their write for IVM page, they indicate they don't pay their writers. The last cite you added was for Cleopatra, which, while reliable, is the record label, and therefore not independent. But I'd be interested on other opinions on those sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although a nice job by Themusicman57 on finding additional sourcing, I agree with Torchiest's assessment of those references. My own searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 24 April 2016 (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.