Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illogistical Resource Dept.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. Secret account 01:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Illogistical Resource Dept.
- Illogistical Resource Dept. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
only reference is their record label website. band members, label, are all nonnotable. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So what's wrong with that? Nonnotable as in not famous enough? Soundtweaker
- Delete. Non-notable. In response to Soundtweaker, this doesn't cast aspersions on the band's fame or importance, it just means that they haven't been written about in any great detail by independent, reliable sources. See WP:Notability for a fuller explanation. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I nominated for lack of coverage only. Thank you ST for adding review refs, which is one result of AFD'ing an article: proponents of keeping adding evidence of notability. the examiner review is at www.examiner.com/review/the-illogistical-resource-dept-s-catharsis-cd-will-speak-to-you, but we cant link to it as a blocked site. I dont know if those are enough, as brushvox doesnt have much notability itself. I have no problem with the article being recreated in the future if they start to get reviews. (I also like them)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yea not sure why examiner.com is a blocked site since it's a legit site but I added it anyway so people can copy and paste if they like. More reviews and references are coming soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundtweaker (talk • contribs) 23:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, did not find ]
- Delete. Lack of coverage. The brushvox source seems to be a blog, which is not a WP:RS, and there's really nothing else to support the band as notable. Ducknish (talk) 18:24, 24 March 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.