Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floyd Soul and the Wolf

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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). Additionally, the !vote that only states "keep" provides no rationale for doing so, which contributes to this discussion being closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Soul and the Wolf

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. I had a hard time finding any reliable secondary sources, sadly. SarahStierch (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Westmeath Examiner Hot Press archives The Munster Express — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.77.237 (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And most I did find are mere mentions or read like press releases. I can't access the Hot Press archives. Perhaps Wikipedians from Ireland can confirm that this band indeed notable. SarahStierch (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hi User:SamanthaPuckettIndo, thanks for your participation. I'd like to learn more about why you think this article should be kept. thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete marginal coverage over an 6 year period, fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Murry1975 (talk) 08:52, 9 April 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 10 April 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, Randykitty (talk) 13:56, 18 April 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.