- 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rocket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is just self promotion. No figures of important exist within the article Kruzelc77 (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't see this as 'just self-promotion', and that claim is not borne out from the article history, although there appear to have been contributions from some single-purpose accounts. The band has had minor placings on a Billboard chart, and there is some coverage, though perhaps not enough for notability to be convincing, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]. --Michig (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep passes WP:BAND with three charted singles and third-party coverage. Eric444 (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I found this review to add to the above coverage but not much else. Combined with the chart appearances, I suppose there's just enough to clear the bar. Gongshow talk 09:09, 3 July 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.