Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Be (band)

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 delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Be (band)

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

unsourced, notability is claimed but not supported, and the article is a COI and is so strongly POV and stylistically flawed as to be unsalvageable. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 02:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Dubious notability, some claims, but unsure whether these amount to WP:N. Record label seems non-notable. Press reviews may not necessarily be big publications.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the press releases look like reliable sources to me. The definition of "non-trivial" press mentions doesn't weigh on how big the publications are, but how relevant the reference to the band is. Meets criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 11:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Completely unreferenced article. Contrary to Zeibura's claim, press releases and other self-published sources are not considered reliable, and certainly don't rise to "non-trivial press" as required in WP:MUSIC. Fails notability guidelines, unreferenced claims of grandeur, and COI == put this puppy down.  ;-) /Blaxthos 12:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Very Weak Keep but this is very borderline, some of those reviews really need to be sourced properly. However, reviews on Popmatters [1] and InMusicWeTrust [2], tip me slightly towards keep. Nom is right that it needs cleaning up badly though.EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete The band has apparently been around for over a decade and is arguably notable, but the press section is ridiculous for Wikipedia since it is obvious self-promotion commonly found on official band websites. Unless it is quickly fixed, I think this should be deleted. --David Andreas 17:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Article in its current form is also a candidate for a G12 Speedy Delete. However even if article were to be cleaned up I am not satisfied from what I can find on the Internet that this band meets WP:Music. A1octopus 18:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep it, info on this band is so scarce any source is precious

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.