Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computerman

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 keep. Discounting the SPA that came here to vote, and taking in account that Undead Warrior prefered deletion if no other sources could be found, which has been since then, and also taking into account that verifiability is the issue, not if the article is currently verified by sources (which can be fixed without deleting the article), which reduces the weight of the comment by Coccyx, the result is keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Computerman

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

Insufficient notability, and reasons provided in talk are unsourced/untrue Tenacious D Fan (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Band appears to be notable, see coverage by the BBC. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete if no other sources can be found. One source, in my opinion, is not good enough. Undeath (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment See also: this, this and this coverage. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless notable sources can be found. Tavix (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment There also seem to be articles about them in the Leicester Mercury and Europe Intelligence Wire, although pay (or library access) is required to view online. I've never heard of this band, but then I'm in New Zealand and they're in the UK. But there are plenty of articles about them, some from reliable sources including the BBC. Don't understand what the doubt about their notability is, Google finds ample coverage.Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There seems to be enough coverage of this band to make it notable. A note to the nom, check the history if a speedy tag disappears- it looks like you retagged A7 the very edit after another A7 speedy by you was declined. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete without prejudice. There may be sources, but they're sure as hell not in the current article!! Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • If that's your reason for deletion, why don't you add them instead? Articles shouldn't be deleted for reasons that can be fixed by simple editing.Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Insufficient notability. DigitalChedz (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC) — DigitalChedz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment DigitalChedz has only made one contribution and that is to this AfD. Undeath (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please scrap digitalchedz. I haven't brought him here, and I don't see what business he has voting if he has no contribs. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability not established or even asserted in article. Not all bands are inherently notable. --Ave Caesar (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2008 (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.