Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pel Mel

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 Keep. Fram (talk) 10:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pel Mel

Pel Mel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

non notable, non sourced and a disbanded band English836 (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom. Hammer1980·talk 00:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Does not meet MUSIC, and is unsourced. Since they do not exist any longer, I don't think they will suddenly meet MUSIC standards any time in the future. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: A [google search] turns up a lot of borderline-reliability type citations. While its not much, this isn't just a band that plays in moms garage. For a band that has been disbanded this long, there is a surprising amount of pub out there. While I have not yet found any reliable sources on the web, I am not convinced that there are no reliable sources out there, for example reliable print media contemporary to the band that exists only in print form.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. They're more than a garage band but fall short of WP:MUSIC, with only one compilation appearance making AllMusic, and no citations period from Google News Archive (although this period is not generally covered) or Google Books. Might be appropriate on a punk-music Wikia or some such but short of our standards. --Dhartung | Talk 02:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable band. The fact that they are disbanded is totally irrelevant. Pel Mel were a key band in the Australian post-punk scene, supporting the likes of New Order when they toured there. They released two albums on the EMI-related GAP records, which itself is sufficient for WP:MUSIC.--Michig (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to be a notable part of the Australian post-punk scene. Sources have been added. 96T (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, seems to be marginally notable enough, with two albums on a label that's part of EMI. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep article in current form does meet WP:MUSIC.Garrie 10:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment What you said makes no sense. Why keep it in current form if it doesn't meet WP:MUSIC?--English836 (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
What he said was that it does meet WP:MUSIC, not that it doesn't. 96T (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Which was to seperate myself from Rdj0060, I am assuming when the above comment was made the article did not meet WP:MUSIC.Garrie 03:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems to meet criteria #5 of WP:MUSIC, and maybe #4 as well. Lankiveil (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep as band does seem at least somewhat notable, but article would be improved if more evidence of this were provided. If they were really influential, it should be possible to find more than one musician citing them as an influence. CKarnstein (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2007 (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.