Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronin (band)

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. Waggers (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ronin (band)

Ronin (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

There is a dispute about the notability of this band (WP:MUSIC). The article was tagged with {{notability}} since June 07. I recently PRODded it, for failing the criteria: The band has released only one album, and the article makes some other claims which are illustrious but unsourced. The PROD was contested, and the maintenance tags removed, by an IP user without comment. Another user later restored the maintenance tags. I'm sending it here to resolve the issue. B. Wolterding (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This band, also called Ronin, appears to have some press, but I couldn't find anything on the Singapore one above, and their "official" website is a dead link. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep pending verification of claims that their video was in heavy rotation on MTVAsia and that they're signed to Universal's regional label. If one or both of these facts are substantiated, WP:MUSIC should be satisfied. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 20:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep; looked a bit around for info on this band, and if the sources are reliable enough, it seems they fulfill WP:MUSIC - criteria for musicians on point 2. (a national hit) and 10. (written a piece for a notable film). The last point isn't really strong enough by itself, though - referring to Caknuck’s point - it indeed appears they have/had a deal with Universal. All in all, probably enough to keep the article. --Van helsing (talk) 09:55, 13 May 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.