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. -- Longhair\^talk 04:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parralox[edit]

Was deleted via WP:PROD a few days ago but has popped back up. The original concern was that Parralox are not yet notable and there is nothing in the current iteration of the article to suggest that this has changed. Ergo Parralox fails WP:BAND. nancy ^talk 11:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 15:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, recently deleted, no inline citations. --Meld shal 12:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fall short of WP:MUSIC. For what it's worth, so does related article The Tenth Stage. Murtoa (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Google News archives, Parralox helps Patsy cheat the signs of aging!. Nothing about the band, though, either there or in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. Delete unless someone can find some sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to meet the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:50, 13 August 2008 (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.