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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Vicious

[edit]
Mount Vicious (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)

Subject does not meet notability requirements. Top pocket man (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the best idea for this would be to MERGE this into another article, or downgrade to a section. There are four associated acts that would lead this to be considered notable, but while the band undoubtedly had no degree of hype for a one year period, it has not sustained. Spotify plays for the band are less than 1,000. The band website has not been updated in 10 years, it isn't mentioned in interviews or press anywhere.

It is only relevant as a "resume item" for other more notable endeavors of the members. The notable related acts include: Bootblacks (http://www.bootblacks.net) (no page), Conan Neutron and the Secret Friends (notable touring and recording act with association with larger notoriety), Replicator (still cited as influential and relevant), and Household Gods . I concluded while listing the associated acts of Household Gods (Pajo's alone is exhaustive!) that ten years out, this band page isn't notable enough to keep around. Top pocket man (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed nomination reason to: Subject does not meet notability requirements. Top pocket man (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now could people please discuss actual notability instead of correcting the nominator about how it is not temporary?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:44, 23 June 2020 (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.