Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enuff Z'nuff

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. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enuff Z'nuff

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

As the article says, they have not achieved major success. Half the refs are 404, the rest seem to be lists or directories. I'm not finding non-trivial independent coverage of this band as a subject, only passing mentions. Google News comes up with passing mentions also. All the substantive content appears to be the work of single purpose accounts. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the major recording label experience, I believe that they pass WP:BAND. The article could use better referencing and overall improvement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band does appear to be well covered in several Rolling Stone articles. this article describe how they were becoming less popular after Guns N' Roses and the grunge movement. this article quotes them several times about opinions on Rocklahoma. this article is about their collaboration with Smashing Pumpkins. --I Jethrobot (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Billboard's website confirms the chart placings, the US chart placings can be confirmed at Allmusic ([1]), and Martin Strong's The Great Metal Discography confirms hit albums and singles in the US and the UK, and includes significant coverage, as does Allmusic. There's further coverage in SPIN and Billboard. Enuff Z'nuff. --Michig (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple charting releases on notable labels, easily passes WP:MUSIC. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with comments above, clearly a notable band. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perhaps worse than Cinderella, and oh how I wish they weren't notable, but they are. Among the lower rungs of the late 80s hair-metal bands, they were still somewhat popular and released at least two album on a major label. And were the subject of mainstream press coverage.[2][3][4][5][6]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:55, 4 July 2011 (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.