Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob cuba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus JoshuaZ 14:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob cuba

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

Not a notable band. Google results show nothing notable; just some non-reliable sources that don't prove notability. — i said 01:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seems notable to me. Did a Google Search myself and found more than enough notable websites. -Domthedude001 02:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment If you think you have good references there, please put them on the page so we can see them. When I followed your link, I saw a lot of monkey-spank. MarkBul 04:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Monkey-spank? What'd the poor monkey do? Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The text of the article confirms that the band's work does not establish it as notable. Unless several sources are found and added to justify notability under the general guidelines, this needs to be deleted. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable band. Keb25 05:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Having a song used in a t.v. show is within the Wikipedia criteria for notability, though it would not be enough in and of itself for the band to have it's own article. However, References to sources such as NME clearly indicate the band has been well documented by other major media. The article could use better citations to those sources, but that is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Dead-Air 05:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Album of the week choice by a major UK newspaper (The Sun), song used in a TV programme, seems as though they have toured the UK, multiple reliable sources given. That's WP:BAND's criteria #1, #10 and possibly #4. Bondegezou 14:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz 03:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable. His own website is listed as a reference, and then as an external link. The band is produced under their own label as well, which further hurts their case for notability in my opinion. Also, most google hits are coming from self produced sources like myspace, indiestore, and youtube. Self-publication and blogging doesn't make for notability Iamchrisryan 12:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clear case of WP:SPAM and WP:AUTO. See contribs. - Che Neuvara 18:47, 1 October 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.