Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fun 100

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 keep. Shanel 01:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fun 100

Delete. Previously speedy-deleted and subsequently recreated. No mention at Allmusic, Amazon, Google. This band has absolutely no claim to notability. -- Krash (Talk) 04:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - CSD G4, recreation of deleted material. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 04:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Fun 100 easily fits into the confines of WP:Music. They are on the two Canadian national college charts (links are in the article). They have gone on two Canadian tours. They have been featured in music media, again, sources are named and linked to. They placed second in the biggest music competition in Vancouver, Shindig. Only one of those criteria must be met for a subject to be eligible for an article. How is this even an issue? This is not just the same information as before, more information has been added and sources cited. JonnyChance 05:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't find that any of the sources satisfy WP:V or WP:RS. -- Krash (Talk) 05:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The Speedy tag has been removed by myself -see the talk page. If a band is deleted and subsequently qualifies or claims qualification under WP:MUSIC, it is not eligible for G$ which only applies to articles which are substantially the same. They have made the college charts in Canada just below Franz Ferdinand and have completed two tours. They are notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 05:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep VirtualSteve 08:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, although I think I'll have to scrub my skin with lye after I say it. There is a lot of bandity in Wikipedia, and I have never heard a single good song on campus radio in my life, but they still cut it. Yes, they're notable. They're verifiable. I will now light myself on fire. Lord Bob 18:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, chart links: !earshot - Top 200 of Dec 2005, Top 200 of Nov 2005 Top 50 for week ending: Feb 7, 2006, Nov 8, 2005, Nov 29, 2005, etc.. (I wont bother listing the 40 others..) nkife 05:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Chart, Earshot and CBC Radio 3 are all sufficiently major music media to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. Not a band I've ever actually heard of, personally, but the sources all check out. Keep. Bearcat 06:28, 25 February 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.