Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miniature Tigers

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 Delete. Whichever way I look at it, I don't see that this band passes WP:MUSIC. No prejudice to re-creation should they do so in the future, of course. Black Kite 20:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miniature Tigers

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

White Magic EP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Black Magic EP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable band with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Including 2 EPs by the band, similarly unreferenced, with little or no media coverage. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:23, 9 March 2008 [(UTC)
• Delete, a Google search brings up nothing but blog hits and other unreliable sources. I have to admit though, the idea of a classical group that sound like Weezer is incredibly amusing... AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep a review on them at www.pheonixnewtimes.com and at www.urb.com really says alot about them. --Thebluesharpdude (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The Urb piece is part of a contest/promotion ("The Next 1000") and is not a review. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  •  Keep  Rolling Stone Magazine declared Miniature Tigers one of the top 25 best bands on MySpace. --Thebluesharpdude (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Note: Only one !vote per editor, please. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony}
    • Comment While a mention in Rolling Stone (or, rather, on their website) is a good indication that they may become notable in the near future, having your band's name listed with 24 other bands (and nothing more) isn't much in the way of coverage. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per information provided above. Catchpole (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Sources aren't sufficient to establish notability: the Rolling Stone mentions them in a subjective list of the "Top 25 Bands on MySpace." Looks promising but not up to the requirements yet. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. While the Rolling Stones listing is a pretty good start, I agree with those arguing that it doesn't tip this band over the notability line. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:30, 16 March 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.