Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B.R.O.T.H.E.R movement

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 Keep (non-admin). Page meets WP:BAND criteria as a spill-over of other notables. Any problems with content should be resolved by editing, not deletion. Thanks! --Cerejota 01:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B.R.O.T.H.E.R movement

B.R.O.T.H.E.R movement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unreferenced for over a year, and still no hits on Google about this group. Non-neutral, non-verifiable. Listed for AfD rather than prod due to age. Hersfold ^(talk/work) 23:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7 for non-notable group, obviously non-notable if Google hasn't heard of it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Google has heard of it, though; please see below. It's only a small handful of results, but I'm sure there are more hiding in other areas of the web that are heard to search. — xDanielx^Talk 23:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak keep. It's hard to search for sources when you have such a large acronym which I'm guessing is rarely written out, and a search for "brother" is of course useless. Still, I'm not sure how you're getting "no hits on Google." I see some, unless I'm going mad. This page has a good description, which the article seems to be almost entirely premised on. (Note however, that plagiarism is a reason to modify an article, not delete it.) The Discogs looks rather mediocre to me in terms of credibility, but Google confirms that it's at least not a hoax -- you can even see the group here. My main motivation for a very weak keep is not the Discogs article or the video, but the fact that many of the members are individually notable, and they seem to be connected in a meaningful way. So, very weak keep per spillover notability. — xDanielx^Talk 23:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom not notable and unreferenced. Harlowraman 00:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep per xDanielx. Mathmo ^Talk 03:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Plagiarism is a reason for speedy deletion if there is not a clean version of the article to revert to (CSD#12). However, I think that the movement merits keeping because it seems to satisfy music notability guidelines in that it was a band, however briefly, that contained at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable. Redirects won't work, because it contained more than one prominent member. Needs rewriting and quickly, though, to eliminate that potential plagiarism. (I say potential because so many places seem to take their text from Wikipedia that I have a chicken/egg uncertainty about sites like that one.) --Moonriddengirl 11:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article has been rewritten to deal with any copyvio concerns. Other than that, meets the requirements of WP:BAND. Nuttah68 07:15, 12 August 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.