Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Punters: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:25, 26 February 2009

The Punters

nominator (which is not me, see history) didn't specify reason. I personally think we should keep this article. Debresser (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any evidence that they meet the WP:BAND criteria for inclusion. Their record labels are redlinks, and the article references no third-party sources. Powers ^T 14:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete If anyone finds sources that prove even half of the things this article claims, this band would be notable. However, it still fails WP:BAND as well as the General Notability Guidelines. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They don't appear to be notable, I can't find anything about them through the first several pages of googlesearching (apart from this page). --Ged UK 14:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does look a tad like a fake, doesn't it. :) Debresser (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The band is entirely real, if the nominator were questioning that he would have nominated it for Speedy Deletion. However, the band meets neither the General Notability guidelines, nor the Notability criteria for bands. In order to be included in Wikipedia, a subject must be both Verifiable and Notable. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 15:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me that In this case you can't prove anything from the fact that the nominator didn't put it up for speedy deletion. Do you know it is real? Debresser (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboozled again! I was under the impression that you were under the impression that the reason the other contributers chose Delete was verifiability. In any case, with the right search terms [1], Google returns a few results. Then again, it could be an elaborate hoax. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was and am. The question is whether they did their research. You did, so now at least I believe the article is not a fake. Perhaps keep it as a stub Debresser (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Still fails notability criteria, though. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 15:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 :::*'''Bamboozled again!''' I was under the impression that you were under the impression that the reason the other contributers chose '''Delete''' was verifiability. In any case, with the right search terms [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Punters+canadian+band&aq=f&oq], Google returns a few results.  Then again, it could be an elaborate hoax. [[User:ZappyGun|ZappyGun ]]<font color="blue">[[User_talk:ZappyGun|(talk to me)]]</font><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/ZappyGun|What I've done for Wikipedia]]</font> 14:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 :: I was and am. The question is whether they did their research. You did, so now at least I believe the article is not a fake. Perhaps '''keep it as a stub''' [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 15:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
+:::'''D'oh!''' Still fails notability criteria, though. [[User:ZappyGun|ZappyGun ]]<font color="blue">[[User_talk:ZappyGun|(talk to me)]]</font><font color="green">[[Special:Contributions/ZappyGun|What I've done for Wikipedia]]</font> 15:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)