Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonseed

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sonseed

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

Band does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. I can't find any WP:RSs to support notability other than to prove existence. The mocking of their one notable song doesn't appear to have any support either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 03:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BAND criterion #1 with coverage in multiple third-party sources; I've added several. The article could be further expanded from the new sources, in particular the article in Cross Rhythms. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:56, 10 February 2013 (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.