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. Delete all Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peppermint Creeps[edit]

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

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

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

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

Delete. Poorly sourced article, with some advertorial overtones, of a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and entirely unsourced articles about three of their albums with no claim whatosever to passing WP:NALBUMS. The writing here is very much more like a fansite than an encyclopedia article, and basically documents their existence without ever actually stating anything that would make their existence notable -- the closest it gets is the number of albums they're said to have released, but NMUSIC #5 requires the albums to be on a major or prominent indie label, and as near as I can tell all or almost all of this band's albums were self-released. And the only references cited here at all are primary sources, with not even the first shred of reliable source coverage in real media shown. The closest thing to a reliable source anywhere in the entire batch is an AllMusic profile for one of the albums, which fails to review it and just provides the track listing — and it is not evidence of notability if AllMusic, of all places, fails to deem it worthy of a written review. As always, a band is not entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they existed; RS coverage, verifying one or more accomplishments that objectively pass NMUSIC, must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LEAVE.No need to remove, I have added links to. (I'm from Ukraine, I'm interested to know about the group. Сергій Козачок (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you added consists entirely of blogs and user-generated content sites, not a single one of which counts as a reliable source. Proper referencing for a Wikipedia article is published coverage in real media, not blogs or last.fm or a band's own self-published website about itself or an album's sales page on amazon.com. Your personal interest in knowing more about a group does not hand them a special exemption from Wikipedia's content and sourcing rules — a band gets an article if reliable sources are covering them in a context that satisfies NMUSIC, and does not get to blog or press release or iTunes themselves into self-published "notability because we exist". Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Note that a total of four articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (the band). There are bits and pieces of coverage around, some news items about the drummer's death (would the death of a drummer from a non-notable band get that much coverage?), but not all: [1], [2], [3] (seems a legit print magazine but the page appears to be missing a stylesheet), [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. The albums can be merged/redirected to the band. --Michig (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the absence of reliable independent sourcing shows that it is too soon for this article. The band and album are not yet notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Michig has noted multiple instances of brief but non-trivial coverage in a variety of reliable sources, enough to squeak by WP:BAND criterion #1, in my view. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as even the Keep comments themselves state how they are either not entirely confident or the listed sources are not yet substantial enough, and this is exactly what I'm going to state also: None of the listed sources, regardless if compiled and combined, come to an actual convincing amount of substance. SwisterTwister talk 00:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Michig did a fairly thorough search for sources, but those are not quite enough for me: most of those mentions are far too brief. Vanamonde (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2016 (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.