Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Braxton Hicks (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. WjBscribe 09:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Braxton Hicks (band)

Braxton Hicks (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Insufficient notability - lacks mutliple independant sources to allow information to be verified. The first google hit is another UK band using the same name who play pubs and I couldn't find anything else about it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as not having sufficient sources to verify notability per WP:BAND. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless some sources establishing notability are added before the close of this AfD. As it stands, it's actaully a good candidate for speedy under CSD A7 since there is no notability asserted. Given that the article was literally created only a half an hour ago, though, I guess I'll allow some time for the author to make an assertion and add some sources, rather than slapping the speedy tag on it right now. Mwelch 21:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - got national airplay on Triple J (national Australian radio station)

[1]. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

....actually not the band listed above...and neither's this [2]!cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 06:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 08:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I think the mere fact there are two bands with the same name is kinda interesting...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 07:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 01:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no evidence of notability at all. NBeale 06:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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.