Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonette

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The result was Nomination withdrawn in light of new evidence. I honestly don't mean to "waste community time." Deranged bulbasaur 15:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dragonette

Dragonette (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article begins by saying they're signed to Mercury UK, which seems to be heading in a notable direction, but then we have "Although no official material has been released yet..." basically admitting that they haven't yet done anything. Bands that haven't released any albums are about as notable as authors who haven't written any books or influential short stories. It says they've done a tour, which might be the article's salvation, but then admits that it involves "small venues." It certainly doesn't help that the only two sources are a myspace page and the band's first party website. That raises questions of attributability to go with the other problems. Deranged bulbasaur 05:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator (RS/ATT/N). /Blaxthos 09:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Normally I'm very wary of bands that haven't really done much, but they've had coverage in The Guardian, Eye Weekly and NOW Magazine, plus a review here. According to The Guardian they supported Duran Duran on a US tour, and there's enough independent source material to create a reasonable stub until more information is available. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per One Night In Hackney. Nominator should have done some research instead of passing them off as an "en-en band"-K@ngie^meep! 11:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not my job to do the research, it's the articles job to meet wikipedia guidelines. It still doesn't, because nobody has bothered to improve it. Deranged bulbasaur 13:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm afraid it is your job. Poorly researched AfDs waste community time. Instead of nominating the article for deletion. why didn't you look for sources or add the {{primarysources}} tag? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as others have said.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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.