Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Da Pupz

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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually went to each edit on the diff story to verify what was going on. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Da Pupz and Da pupz (duplicate articles)

Probably a hoax (only three Google hits for "Da pupz", and only one seems to be them -- a link to their myspace page). But even if not, their website is a myspace page, and they fail WP:MUSIC. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Not a candidate for speedy deletion. I'm not sure what it is. But I have concluded it's non-encyclopedic. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 22:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Hoax, I think, though even if not, they fail WP:MUSIC. Delete. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• I wasn't quite sure what to make of this either, but having read their MySpace page, it's certainly clear that they are not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, so Delete (or perhaps Userfy?) - N (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: duplicate articles. I've merged the discussion pages. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 22:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Theres no real reason to delete. These guys are indeed a cult band and they seem to be getting bigger. If people like MC 900 Ft Jesus have articles, why not these guys? 24.24.153.65 02:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for failure to meet WP:MUSIC. Eddie.willers 03:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• KEEPThis article, while not about a grammy winning, multi-platinum group, is not a hoax. Da Pupz do actually have a large following but they are as of right now a very regional cultish kind of group. Like many groups before they become huge successes, their following is based mostly on bootlegs of a very superb demo cd and fans who await their studio album in progress. I think it would be a shame to drop this article because it is informative about a group that is notoriously difficult to obtain information about. Da Pupz are expanding their fan base daily and I believe that one day this group will truly be at the top of the charts. Even if not, don't you think it is nice to find out about things you didn't know about before? The music scene of Albuquerque is not exactly the talk of the town right now, so aside from a few mentions of it here and there (this article being one of the more prominent), how would people ever find out about it if they were interested? I beg you to keep this article up, I think it is important that the curious be able to find out about this awesome group, even if they havent sold millions of records yet. Also I garauntee this is not a hoax, as somebody said, I have actually seen the group live and they were incredible!
• Delete for failure to meet any WP:MUSIC criteria. This is not to claim they are a hoax -- they may be exactly what the article says they are -- just that they have not achieved sufficient public attention to warrant an article on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 08:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Eusebeus 12:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Zoe, note that my Delete vote was changed by a self-interested vandal (thanks to FoN for pointing it out to me) to keep which i have slashed out now. Can you take the appropriate action. I think this should be speedied if possible based on the vandalism. tx Eusebeus 08:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It looks like they have attention now
• delete NN band Pete.Hurd 05:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep purely because I'm appalled at people voting to speedy delete because somebody vandalized their vote. Phil Sandifer 15:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh, I certainly don't want to provoke wanton keep votes. Surely my suggestion counts less than the merits of the article under review. Eusebeus 23:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• • WP:DBAD, WP:POINT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete purely because I'm appalled at people voting to keep just to make a point... or rather, as non-verifiable and failing WP:MUSIC. — Haeleth Talk 23:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• To the admin who closes this vote: Please discount Snowspinner's vote as an attempt at disrupting the process. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If the process is getting hijacked by absurdities like "I'm mad that someone vandalized my vote, so I' want to speedy delete," it seems a fundamental responsibility of people to speak up and try to counterbalance the madness. That's not disruption any more than, well, 90% of what you do on AfD. Phil Sandifer 23:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Guy, that's WP:POINT if I've ever seen it. "Counterbalance"? --Calton | Talk 07:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    • So, madness should be fought with more madness? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Fails MUSIC, etc. And, although I'm going to keep typing this until my fingers bleed, this isn't a vote it is a discussion. So I won't bother to say "delete" because I have faith that the closing admin will use good judgment in weighing up the arguments and determining both the consensus view of the evidence presented and the best interests of the encyclopedia. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• I say delete it, though apparently it isn't a vote or anything. Fails WP:MUSIC, Google test, etc. --Calton | Talk 07:51, 25 November 2005 (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.