Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windmill (band)

Windmill (band)

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

Page created by a user who appears to have a COI. A Google search gives no pertinent hits for "Windmill Matthew Thomas Dilton". This seems to be a page created in an effort to promote an unknown band. Travelbird (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. Non-notable musical project that has never charted. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. You should both perhaps look here for how to search for sources before deciding that an article should be deleted (per WP:BEFORE). I found all these: BBC review, NME Review, Drowned in Sound review, Paste article, Gigwise.com review, Metro interview, The Guardian review, tinymixtapes review, NME review, SPIN review, MOJO review, Les Inrockuptibles review. Quite clearly notable.--Michig (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)...and there's a review at Allmusic as well.--Michig (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Michig (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not all, but more than enough of the sources mentioned by Michig are sufficient to assert notability and are reliable sources (checked and verified). They just need adding to the article. Kudpung (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Michig. Joe Chill (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm pretty sure it only took Michig about 10 minutes to come up with those sources. It took the nominator less than than after article creation to put it up for deletion. Bad form old bean. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. You would have to search 'Dillon' not 'Dilton'.