Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lemon Hill (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. Cirt (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lemon Hill (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Nonnotable local band with no albums yet (two that are "upcoming"). Cited sources don't have links, and I was unable to verify the reference to the Sun-Sentinel. 109 unique Google hits for "Lemon Hill" + Palermo (name of lead singer), many not about this band. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the citations are in print newspapers they should not require links. The Sun-Sentinel and Insite magazine can be verified, but you need an archived copy which is easily obtained by calling the headquarters. The editor seems to believe that internet verification of the sources is required, but the guidelines for bands do not require that the sources be electronically verifiable. The editor made a mistake when he claimed that the two albums are "upcoming" Only one is upcoming and the other has been released (confusion may have arisen because the name of the album is is "Untitled"). The number of "unique" google hits seems irrelevant because it would otherwise necessitate the need to be electronically active to be considered notable which isn't always the case for every band Popularsoda (talk) 01:53 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Band does not appear to meet WP:BAND. While I'm willing to accept that there is a reference in the Sun-Sentinel that can't be accessed online, I don't find the other two references to be compelling enough to meet the guidelines. Rnb (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 21:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 08:48, 1 May 2009 (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.