Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Buzzhorn

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 no consensus.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The Buzzhorn

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

This band releaed one album on a major label and featured on the soundtrack of

WP:BAND, although they are close. Rje (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

This article has no need in deleting because of the information that is credibly indicates the importance about this musicians. Additional information about previous albums has been added, the source of this information is fully tested (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:gvfqxqtkldke) for providing useful information. However, this page considered to be appropriate as minor changes has been added. No new external links were added too, only the official site which is taken down. Please, keep this page from being deleted, I just want to have it more expended. Thanks. The Buzzhorn (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Buzzhorn (talk • contribs) 12:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence at all of notability. No independent sources, and even the link to the band's own site no longer links there. (I have therefore removed it.)
talk) 13:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I've restored their sole non-independent album Disconnected for consideration in this AfD too. It should be kept/deleted along with the band's article. Kimchi.sg (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, though "with quotes from Hit Parader magazine labeling The Buzzhorn as "the new hard rock rookies of the year" as well as a 4 star review from metal edge magazine." suggest that multiple reliable independent sources have reviewed their album in detail? Kimchi.sg (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand only one thing: this page firstly appeared at 18:48, 17 April 2007 and existed without being considered to be removed up to the 4th of August. But after a little expenditure of this article it's became a close candidate for deletion. Why? If there are some information that is not suitable to be notable, I can removed it. I don't think this page needs to be deleted, so much information, for example I can only learn from here, as this band was not so notable at all and there is no so much information in the Internet. Thanks.The Buzzhorn (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Buzzhorn (talk • contribs) 19:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no time limit on nominating it for deletion and making it through initial reviews doesn't guarantee that it will/should stay. There is lots of content that puts the band on a pedestal and fails

WP:PEACOCK: almost immediately took center stage in Milwaukee's hard rock scene is bragging written by a marketer. Royal broil 13:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Parts are copyvio from the Allmusic bio and there is clear
coi editing here. Apart from that Keep Adding to allmusic bio and review they have reviews in Wilson, Mark (27 September 2002), "CD REVIEWS", Evansville Courier & Press, Aronoff, Jen (30 August 2002), "DISCS", Buffalo News, Kassulke, Natasha (8 August 2002), "CD REVIEW", Wisconsin State Journal and a student's review in Thorne, Evan (30 January 2004), "Buzzhorn's 'Disconnected' a slightly repetitive success", Chicago Daily Herald duffbeerforme (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Having a major label record, national tours, and Duffbeerforme's sources are enough convince me
WP:PEACOCK language - but cleanup is no reason to delete it. Royal broil 13:44, 7 August 2010 (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.