Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locust Fork (band)

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.

WP:CSD#A7 would also apply. postdlf (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Locust Fork (band)

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

Non-notable band TheLongTone (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Why is this here? Already deleted once per A7 on 17 July 2014 it should have simply been tagged for CSD again and deleted again. A clear case of a non notable band failing
WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Elvester Records should also be deleted per CSD:A7 and "Bring Forth..." should be deleted per CSD:A9 - it's a little walled garden of articles solely about one non-notable band. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for deletion. Clear case of COI/promotion, See User talk:Kudpung#Locust Fork. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2014 (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.