Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Dastardly

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 delete. Existance of reliable sources or of otherwise meeting WP:MUSIC was never established. W.marsh 23:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Dastardly

Nick Dastardly (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This poorly written and completely unsourced article about a band whose notability is marginal (at best) fails to meet any of the 12 criteria listed in WP:MUSIC. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The movie for which they contributed music is itself not notable, and their record releases are not with major labels. Fails WP:MUSIC--Anthony.bradbury 22:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep verifiable, notable. Tulkolahten 22:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Show me the sources. Doc Tropics 19:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; see nomination. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Not only is the information verifiable, the band is notable. I have heard their music in several different forms of media and they have a cult following. In addition to this, the user, Doc Tropics states, "This poorly written and completely unsourced article about a band whose notability is marginal (at best)..." This is an OBVIOUSLY biased statement that seems like he has an axe to grind. Don't delete the article because there is an audience for it and it's problems are fixable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.181.193.7 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Yes, I have an axe to grind - against poorly written, unsourced articles on non-notable subjects. Call it a character flaw. Simply saying "this band is notable" does not actually establish its notability, it simply asserts your opinion. Can you back up your claim with a verifiable source? If so, why not put it in the article? Doc Tropics 07:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Simply saying that the band's "notability is marginal (at best)" does not establish that the band isn't notable, it simply asserts your opinion, which in this case happens to be wrong. And yes, I have something that will establish notability and it wouldn't be hard for you to except you know that youi might prove yourself wrong and that is scary, isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.181.193.7 (talk • contribs).
  • This article is completely unsourced! Please post this alleged proof of notability here; there is none in the article. Doc Tropics 19:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, closing admin please discount WP:ISAYITSNOTABLETHEREFOREITIS !votes. -Amarkov blahedits 21:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - google seems to turn up quite a few results, including some results on lyrics sites that prob wouldn't publish without notability. I think WP:BAND is out to get the I created the band with my high school friends and we played at the talent show kind of thing, not the kind of group that appears to have a following and has several thousand ghits. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs)
  • Weak Delete All Music Guide only lists one self-published album, which fails WP:MUSIC two ways. (Although it does confirm that this is probably not a hoax.) Change to keep if (and only if) verifiable evidence from reliable sources is provided to show that they meet some of the other criteria of WP:MUSIC. Otherwise, well, guys, this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, and if you just want free web space, MySpace is thataway! Xtifr tälk 23:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Though, I agree that the article needs improvement and may not be written in a perfect way, this is a notable band! They have been featured in major television shows quite regularly and they were in a few major Hollywood movie. In addition to this, their following isn't regional, they have followings all throughout the country. In addition to this, if you google this band you find that every bit of this information is in some sort of verifiable source. There seems to be some contention between the Doc Tropics guy and this article, because if he really wanted to simply make the articles better he could easily do this himself since he is obviously aware of how to source the articles. I did read all of this information in some form or fasion in other sources before I tried to find them on Wikipedia. Do a google, they are nationwide notable and are consistently involved at least minimally in major projects that give them a following. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spanish angel987 (talk • contribs) — Spanish angel987 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • If you could provide some of those notable television shows, it would be quite helpful. Especially if you gave the source, so we didn't have to look it up. -Patstuarttalk|edits 10:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The band is notable and the article fixable and not much worse than many of the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickenlittlegirl (talk • contribs)
  • Comment I know a few of them, and it shouldn't be hard to find. However I am not aware how to source so I will have to wait untill I have a significant amount of freetime so that I could read about all of that.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickenlittlegirl (talk • contribs)
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.