Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Littl'ans (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Keep |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
*'''Keep''' - After a quick search, I've added sources for the group's tour with Babyshambles, and their UK chart hit. On its own, I suggest the chart hit satisfies [[WP:MUSIC]]. [[User:Eludium-q36|Eludium-q36]] 10:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' - After a quick search, I've added sources for the group's tour with Babyshambles, and their UK chart hit. On its own, I suggest the chart hit satisfies [[WP:MUSIC]]. [[User:Eludium-q36|Eludium-q36]] 10:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' - The first four results on Google are three Myspace pages and this article, and most of the others are lyrics. The name gets 27,800 hits, as opposed to the 1 million+ hits gotten by other bands. [[User:Curtmack|Curtmack]] 16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' - The first four results on Google are three Myspace pages and this article, and most of the others are lyrics. The name gets 27,800 hits, as opposed to the 1 million+ hits gotten by other bands. [[User:Curtmack|Curtmack]] 16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''', I'm happy with the sourcing in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Littl%27ans&oldid=101805578 current] version - the BBC, NME and Top 40 seem to fill my interpretation of [[WP:RS]]. Per Richard, Top 20 on the UK singles chart, and an international tour, seem to mee [[WP:MUSIC]]. Number 2 on the Indie charts is not bad either as an assertion of notability. I see enough here to convince me to !vote keep. '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|Daniel.Bryant]]''' 11:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 11:51, 20 January 2007
Littl'ans
Was proposed for deletion but has been nominated on AfD before, hence procedural deprod and listing here.
Original prod reason was: The only weak claim to notability was 2 years ago, nothing apparantly notable has happened with the band since. Unsourced, failing WP:V, no non-trivial independant third party coverage failing WP:N. Flyingtoaster1337 12:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I was the prodder (just saying for the sake of disclosure). Still those reasons above, I don't believe this band is notable enough yet. They did support Babyshambles, 2 years ago. Nothing has happened with them since from the look of it. 2 years is long time for absolutely nothing new to happen to a band. The Kinslayer 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - made the top twenty in the UK singles chart, and article alludes to a tour of New York which if it was properly sourced, along with numerous gigs in the UK would easily satisfy the accepted criteria - even without any reference to Pete Doherty! - fchd 16:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'll happily change to a keep if the article becomes decently sourced in that case. But, as it stands the article fails WP:V. The Kinslayer 16:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - After a quick search, I've added sources for the group's tour with Babyshambles, and their UK chart hit. On its own, I suggest the chart hit satisfies WP:MUSIC. Eludium-q36 10:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - The first four results on Google are three Myspace pages and this article, and most of the others are lyrics. The name gets 27,800 hits, as opposed to the 1 million+ hits gotten by other bands. Curtmack 16:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, I'm happy with the sourcing in the current version - the BBC, NME and Top 40 seem to fill my interpretation of WP:RS. Per Richard, Top 20 on the UK singles chart, and an international tour, seem to mee WP:MUSIC. Number 2 on the Indie charts is not bad either as an assertion of notability. I see enough here to convince me to !vote keep. Daniel.Bryant 11:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)