Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louden Swain (band)

:{{la|Louden Swain (band)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Louden_Swain_(band) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Louden Swain (band)}})

I sppedied tis a long time ago, but the speedy was declined on the grounds that a song by the band features in a major movie release. Actually that seems like a claim of notability for the song rather than the band: note that pretty well all the references are self-published, you tube or Amazon. Additionally the lead singer Rob Benedict has a biog (he acts). I really don't think this article is necessary...I've just given it a feew edits; one thing was removing gross overlinking to the singers biog, the kind of crapola that makes me think a snecking publicist has been involved.TheLongTone (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Furthering nom's comments, the article is severely unreferenced and contains extreme puffery. I could find no coverage attesting to its notability apart from a few scant mentions about the actor and his role in Supernatural. Band clearly fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep WP:NOEFFORT, WP:POTENTIAL Speedy was declined for a reason. Caspera y (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Caspera y (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

::Yes. It was declined for a reason that does not stand up under scrutiny. The information about a single song can be included in the singer's biog. Essentially this band is a vanity project.TheLongTone (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

::I am, incidentally, a tad suspicious of new editors who throw around wiki jargon in the way that Caspera y does. Even if they are ludicrously off-beam. It's obvious that this article has been overgroomed by some drone probably doing so for moolah; the article will not get acquire new content because there is seemingly nothing about these dull rawk merchants, probably because they are terminally dull. Any possible improvement lies in the area of ruthlesslessly eradicating spam and fluff.TheLongTone (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

:::You are correct that I am new and this is the first page I stumbled upon with delete notice. I figured this is small enough article for my first try. Jargons are specifically listed in the list of Wikipedia deletion guide to use in these discussions, I just followed their rules. I was not aware or had no intention of being offensive for using them. I see the point that a single song may be a better representation of the article than the band based on the previous version of the page. However now there are some new citations (that I haven't yet reviewed), which brings to my original point of no effort/potential on the article. It was mentioned that the page was "overgroomed" as "vanity project", but the impression from history was that not much effort was made to clean up or bring it up to standard. Comment about "the article will not acquire new content" is pure speculation. So I guess now it's up to the administrator to judge if the article warrants deletion. I will most likely not follow up on this further. Thank you for your time. Caspera y (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Delete as my searches have found links at Books and News but nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.