Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Blood (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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Blood (band)

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

For some reason, these guys don't seem notable enough per the notability guidelines (especially for musicians and performers)...no "significant coverage". A mention on the Guardian's music blog is cool, but so are other not-really-notable garage bands they've reviewed on the blog that never went anywhere. I'll let AfD sort it out. ColonelHenry (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed - this is not a notable band with independent coverage. H6PAYH (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find this a bit baffling. One might expect a search for "Royal Blood" to get a lot of false positives, but the first 3 pages of a Google seatch and the first page of GNews found all these: The Guardian, BBC, The Independent, NME, XfM, This Is Fake DIY, MTV. There's plenty of coverage around, easily sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Dig a bit deeper and there's a Channel 4 TV show, another TIFDIY article, The Argus, and a 2 page feature in NME from the 11 January issue. --Michig (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Upon a review of the sources posted by User:Michig, this group passes WP:BAND point #1 and WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These guys are getting good enough coverage in the UK press right now. I've stuck a few more of the more notable sources into the article as references. This ought to be a fairly straight-forward keep-decision. Pasicles (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the article does need some developing, the subject is notable as per WP:BAND. I agree with the users above that there is considerable inclusion of the band in independent sources that can be used for verification. N4 (talk) 03:12, 7 February 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.