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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TimeShard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails the general and band-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. WP:NBAND#12 - substantial segment on a national radio broadcast (they had a session on BBC Radio 1 in 1994).
  2. WP:creative#2 - innovative in the dance music scene as one of the first live dance music acts.
Keep I have added sources to the article which are sufficiently reliable for both of these to meet WP:V, including the allmusic bio and Resident Advisor coverage, which both contribute to WP:GNG. I have also added a 1994 gig review in Melody Maker [1], a 1994 interview in The Mix [2], and a 1994 feature in Generator Magazine [3]. I will continue to look for further sourcing, but these multiple sources are now supporting notability per WP:NBAND#1. ResonantDistortion 23:23, 5 December 2023 (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.