Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semi-Conducted

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. ✗plicit 14:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Conducted

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No refs on the page since 2009. I'm not seeing much which would meet the notability criteria for inclusion but am interested if others can find RS to offer JMWt (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Canada. JMWt (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've got my doubts that any of this band's albums would actually pass contemporary WP:NALBUMS criteria at all — in the old days we basically extended an automatic notability freebie to any album recorded by a notable band, in the name of completionist directoryism, but that's long since been kiboshed in favour of requiring the album to pass WP:GNG. But while the band certainly pass WP:GNG on touring coverage first and foremost, a ProQuest search isn't turning up anything particularly meaningful in the way of album coverage. I'm old and I was there (even met them once, in fact) — and they were essentially a "singles" band who derived far more notability from certain individual songs than from entire albums. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sources since 2009. Quick google search turns up no potential sources that list this album as a topic of discussion. Fails WP:GNG. Brenae wafato (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to have secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG. I also agree with Bearcat's assessment. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 00:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2025 (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.