Line 2,024:
I guess you missed it in the history, but [[King Myers]] was previously prodded and deprodded. Deletion will have to go through AfD. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 20:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
== PROD removed from [[Hazeldine]] (and please stop!) ==
I have removed your PROD from this article, and as your standard next step is to take an article to AfD I'll explain where you went wrong. You stated in your deletion rationale "Searches have noticeably found nothing actually suggestive of the needed substance and there's essentially nothing else better." Aside from this not really making any sense, if you had performed a competent Google search you would have found coverage from:
*''No Depression'': [http://nodepression.com/album-review/hazeldine-double-back], [http://nodepression.com/album-review/hazeldine-orphans], [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-W1LAAAAYAAJ&q=hazeldine+%22digging+you+up%22&dq=hazeldine+%22digging+you+up%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1_YP9jKLOAhUIBcAKHWkOBV8Q6AEIJjAC]
*''Zitty'': [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=b58jAQAAIAAJ&q=hazeldine+%22shawn+barton%22&dq=hazeldine+%22shawn+barton%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCqt2HjqLOAhWLLMAKHaAyBl4Q6AEIIDAB], [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8p8jAQAAIAAJ&q=hazeldine+%22digging+you+up%22&dq=hazeldine+%22digging+you+up%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1_YP9jKLOAhUIBcAKHWkOBV8Q6AEIHDAA]
*''Les Inrockuptibles'': [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1aomAQAAIAAJ&q=hazeldine+%22shawn+barton%22&dq=hazeldine+%22shawn+barton%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCqt2HjqLOAhWLLMAKHaAyBl4Q6AEIJjAC], [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=laEmAQAAIAAJ&q=hazeldine+%22glitterhouse&dq=hazeldine+%22glitterhouse&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiijaaJjaLOAhXHDMAKHURBA-UQ6AEILDAD]
*''Književna revija'': [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=28EhAQAAIAAJ&q=hazeldine+%22shawn+barton%22&dq=hazeldine+%22shawn+barton%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjCqt2HjqLOAhWLLMAKHaAyBl4Q6AEIMDAE]
*''Rolling Stone'': [https://www.rollingstone.de/hazeldine-how-bees-fly-346849/], [https://www.rollingstone.de/reviews/hazeldine-digging-you-up-polydor/]
*''The Virgin Encyclopedia of Nineties Music'': [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=crs7AQAAIAAJ&q=hazeldine+%22digging+you+up%22&dq=hazeldine+%22digging+you+up%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1_YP9jKLOAhUIBcAKHWkOBV8Q6AEIIjAB]
*''Kreuzer'': [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5f4wAQAAIAAJ&q=hazeldine+%22glitterhouse&dq=hazeldine+%22glitterhouse&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiijaaJjaLOAhXHDMAKHURBA-UQ6AEISjAJ]
*''The Independent'': [http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/reviews/album-hazeldine-9234211.html]
*''Hot Press'': [http://www.hotpress.com/Hazeldine/music/reviews/albums/Digging-You-Up/549769.html]
*Allmusic: [http://www.allmusic.com/artist/hazeldine-mn0000668929/biography], [http://www.allmusic.com/album/how-bees-fly-mw0000950290], [http://www.allmusic.com/album/digging-you-up-mw0001184197], [http://www.allmusic.com/album/orphans-mw0000043566], [http://www.allmusic.com/album/double-back-mw0000661628]
and likely more. That's plenty of coverage from good sources from multiple countries. If you were aware of the relevant guideline for notability ([[WP:NMUSIC]]) you would know that the band's album releases on Polydor and Glitterhouse are in themselves enough to indicate notability. PROD is solely for articles that are uncontroversial deletion candidates. Many of the articles you have prodded recently are nowhere near to being suitable for prod, and had you performed a competent web search you would be aware that neither are they good deletion candidates at AfD. Until you are better able to judge notability, please stop nominating articles for deletion. Thanks. --[[User:Michig|Michig]] ([[User talk:Michig|talk]]) 06:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
|