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 keep. J04n(talk page) 18:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey Van Goey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Procedural nomination of PROD contested without explanation by anon user. GiantSnowman (t c)'s original PROD reason was "No evidence of notability, fails WP:NBAND". —Darkwind (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original PRODder, I see no evidence of notability via WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. GiantSnowman 15:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - does, in fact, appear to meet NBAND - but needs massive overhaul to bring up to scratch. GiantSnowman 10:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lack of coverage, artist fail both music criteria and general guideline. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 15:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Two albums released on Chemikal Underground, an artist biography from Allmusic, reviews of their albums in independent reliable sources. Satisfies WP:BAND. The article requires some cleanup, however. — sparklism ^hey! 10:16, 25 February 2013 (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.