Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ground Level
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 06:28, 1 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.Revision as of 06:28, 1 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator, no outstanding delete recomendations. GB fan 12:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ground Level (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No established notability. Two very indifferent refs. No assertion of any significant notability (only reached no 54 in the UK charts) Velella Velella Talk 12:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - This article has been asked to be deleted by the page author. However, there have been many intervening edits which precludes a G7 speedy delete.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - You've too easily dismissed one of its major claims to notability. According to WP:NBAND #2, "Has had a single ... on any country's national music chart." The position is not specified, many bands would love to have had a No. 54 charting single in the UK. Certainly the article could use more work but it should not be deleted for lack of notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for all your help Wiki people. It does look better now and I am happy to keep it on wiki, esp if i can add a photo - which the wiki commons site gave me grief over...HoloGraphica — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoloGraphica (talk • contribs) 05:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you help me add a photo & undo the deletion request? I have a photo sitting in the Wiki Commons data bank, but they have frozen it (?). I did let them know i owned the photo, but have not heard back. thanks again ( so sorry, I am not very savvy at computer code..) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoloGraphica (talk • contribs) 05:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Shaidar cuebiyar above. References definitely need improving, but deletion isn't the right answer to this. Filing Flunky (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD Withdrawn - Keep - proposal to delete withdrawn in light of improvements to article and change of heart of original author. Velella Velella Talk 09:26, 18 November 2011 (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.