Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettel (2nd nomination)

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kettel

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) The closest it got was an AllMusic one-paragraph bio in a custom Google search of reliable music sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 23:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 23:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Certainly nothing better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG. I could find no reliable sources that satisfy the standards required of both WP:GNG and WP:N. There's plenty of "music pages", social media, discography, etc but nothing that satisfies the general notability guideline required for any article. Hence, I am voting delete. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just for my own $0.02, I came to wikipedia looking for this page today and it was there, so i was happy to find it.
here's an english write-up on their label and a recent release http://igloomag.com/reviews/kettel-secede-when-can-sending-orbs
98.67.220.54 (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - Well, I think notability should be redefined or refined if articles like this are deleted. I've just stumbled upon the work of this artist and I was happy to find out that wikipedia had an article for him. Sources are not good though.Κλειδοκράτωρ (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this is being relisted—there is unanimity that the sources are insufficient. Closest is Igloo mag and we don't have a verdict on whether they're even reliable. czar 12:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 13 February 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.