Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Former Fat Boys 2

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. 1ne 06:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former Fat Boys

Non-notable rap group. Article was previously nominated for deletion in March two weeks ago, and there was no consensus to delete, but come on: A Google search brings up only 545 hits, and their Allmusic listing is nothing but a directory listing that tells you where to get their album and nothing else. Their website has an Alexa ranking of 5,462,696. Delete. 1ne 05:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - They have third party coverage and have been on MTV. I think that qualifies them enough to have an article. It could use some cleanup though. --Daniel Olsen 05:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So we should have an article on every single person that has been on MTV? 1ne 06:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the article, this band has appeared on several other media outlets as well. It satisfies the Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media criteria of WP:MUSIC. Thatdog 08:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there is no theoretical limit to what we can include. So yes, if everything that appears on MTV fits criteria for inclusion, we can and must include it. Don't know if this group is notable enough, but sounds like it.--Cerejota 08:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete, voted keep on the other one. These guys aren't super notable. --Liface 06:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per my comment above. --Thatdog 08:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Thatdog. J Milburn 10:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep The nominator was mistaken; this was not at AfD in March, but less than two weeks ago. Thus, I think it's unnecessary to have another discussion. I voted "delete" last time, and I would do so again now, as this group (as stated in the nom) is completely irrelevant, but there is no reason to have this discussion again so quickly. -- Kicking222 13:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh, I'm an idiot about the time. Speedy? I don't think we can do that. 1ne 14:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The group is notable as per comments above. The need not be "super-notable," to be kept, so long as they're plain notable, which they clearly are. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 04:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speddy keep Previous vote was two weeks ago. And yes, we can speedy keep under WP:SNOWBALL as no admin is his or her right mind would risk adminship by deleting an article just two weeks after the previous AfD. This article has a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted, and hence this vote is pointless.--Cerejota 08:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep* this meets a bunch of the qualifications in WPMUSIC. More than enough to justifiably qualify it for inclusion in the Wiki. I helped edit the article the last time, but honestly is this something we need to rehash every two weeks?--Mcchrisfan 06:40, 22 August 2006 (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.