Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fab Four Ultimate Beatles Tribute: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:32, 29 January 2009

Fab Four Ultimate Beatles Tribute

Non-notable band. The article makes some grandiose claims: they perform "all over the world", "started to make it big", "praised by many", "popular", "highly professional and accomplished musician[s]", "popularity continuously ... on the rise", "loving tribute ... has amazed audiences around the world", "across the globe", and of course, "please visit the official website". But let's try to sweep away some of this puffery. First, none of the sources is independent: of 15 links, 7 are the band's own site and 8 are self-published sites or blogs. And second, this "popular" band has just 130 Google hits - not much real-world confirmation of that "popularity". Obvious self-promotion here, so delete. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is ridiculous, this is a valid group. The creator makes a good point, if the Fab Faux can have a page (and THEIR page is clearly self-promoting!), then the Fab Four can have one. Also the person who made the claim about Google hits is wrong - try searching for just 'Fab Four.' Here, I'll even give you the CORRECT link. [1] The Fab Four and their website, www.thefabfour.com, comes up #1 and has over 1,040,000 hits. In the real world, news articles are considered "verifiable" - not sure what planet you're coming from there. And if you actually looked at the links, I think most people would consider playing for Tom Hanks, Eric Idle, Paul Stanley, Dana Carvey, Billy Crystal, etc., AND playing at places like the Hollywood Bowl and Carnegie hall "notable." How can you GET more notable? Someone just has it out for this page for some reason and it's ridiculous, let it stay.MissPijon (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to question User:MissPijon's "keep" recommendation above. The phrase "fab four" did not originate with Fab Four Ultimate Beatles Tribute. That's a nickname that was originally applied to The Beatles themselves. It doesn't hurt the notability of this particular group that they are the #1 Google result for the phrase "fab four", but they can't take credit for most of the other 1 million-plus hits. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a debate about whether or not they should be using the name 'The Fab Four,' I could understand your comment. But this is not about their name, which according to the article they've been legally using for 11 years, this is whether or not the article is about a notable group or not. And I strongly believe they are. Do you have reason that the ARTICLE should be deleted (again, this is not a debate about their name)?MissPijon (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, everyone is harping on the name "Fab Four Ultimate Beatles Tribute." If the creator changed the name to "The Fab Four," which if you will read the article IS the name of the group, would this settle everyone down?MissPijon (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 *'''Keep'''. This is ridiculous, this is a valid group. The creator makes a good point, if the [[Fab Faux]] can have a page (and THEIR page is clearly self-promoting!), then the Fab Four can have one. Also the person who made the claim about Google hits is wrong - try searching for just 'Fab Four.' Here, I'll even give you the CORRECT link. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Fab+Four+%22&btnG=Search] The Fab Four and their website, www.thefabfour.com, comes up #1 and has over 1,040,000 hits. In the real world, news articles are considered "verifiable" - not sure what planet you're coming from there. And if you actually looked at the links, I think most people would consider playing for Tom Hanks, Eric Idle, Paul Stanley, Dana Carvey, Billy Crystal, etc., AND playing at places like the Hollywood Bowl and Carnegie hall "notable." How can you GET more notable? Someone just has it out for this page for some reason and it's ridiculous, let it stay.[[User:MissPijon|MissPijon]] ([[User talk:MissPijon|talk]]) 07:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Delete'''. I have to question [[User:MissPijon]]'s "keep" recommendation above. The phrase "fab four" did not originate with [[Fab Four Ultimate Beatles Tribute]]. That's a nickname that was originally applied to [[The Beatles]] themselves. It doesn't hurt the notability of this particular group that they are the #1 Google result for the phrase "fab four", but they can't take credit for most of the other 1 million-plus hits. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 08:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
-::If this were a debate about whether or not they should be using the name 'The Fab Four,' I could understand your comment. But this is not about their name, this is whether or not the article is about a notable group or not. And I strongly believe they are. Do you have reason that the ARTICLE should be deleted (again, this is not a debate about their name)?[[User:MissPijon|MissPijon]] ([[User talk:MissPijon|talk]]) 09:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
+::If this were a debate about whether or not they should be using the name 'The Fab Four,' I could understand your comment. But this is not about their name, which according to the article they've been legally using for 11 years, this is whether or not the article is about a notable group or not. And I strongly believe they are. Do you have reason that the ARTICLE should be deleted (again, this is not a debate about their name)?[[User:MissPijon|MissPijon]] ([[User talk:MissPijon|talk]]) 09:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 ::::Also, everyone is harping on the name "Fab Four Ultimate Beatles Tribute." If the creator changed the name to "The Fab Four," which if you will read the article IS the name of the group, would this settle everyone down?[[User:MissPijon|MissPijon]] ([[User talk:MissPijon|talk]]) 09:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)