Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slightly Stoopid

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 speedy keep. Reliable sources to assert notability exists. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slightly Stoopid

Slightly Stoopid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This looks like a case of Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. The article does not assert notability, aided by how it has no reliable sources so I googled and found nothing to tell me if this band was notable on google, either. Looks amateur and non-notable. William Ortiz (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I'll pretend like "The band was originally signed by Bradley Nowell from the band Sublime to his label Skunk Records while still in high school" is at least a claim of notability, thus barely managing to skirt past CSD A7, but - unfortunately - notability is not inherited. --Badger Drink (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This actually seems like a case of Wikipedia:Google is a terrible indicator of notability. The band has a profile on allmusic.com, and that is a strong argument in favor of notability. --Badger Drink (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Badger Drink's link and because it looks like they have established notability. Tavix (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, having a profile on allmusic.com doesn't make a band notable, anyone can make a profile, however, getting them to review 2 of your albums, that's different. Band meets WP:MUSIC#C1.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 12:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Post-closure comment per "anyone can make a profile" -- this isn't true, you have to submit something that is commercially available and they retain editorial discretion over inclusion.[1] --Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Per WP:MUSIC, C1? Check: [2] [3] [4], C2? Check. C4? Check. C5: Skunk Records. That's just in 5 minutes of searching. Plenty of evidence. — Ocatecir^T 16:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Never heard of them before, but a quick look at some of the article's sources reveals that it's a band's band. A fact that is more than 'slightly' obvious. It should never have been nominated for an AfD, nor should the nominator be mentioning a google search (how embarrassing for him or her). Here's a WP:Trout for this Slightly Stoopid nomination (hate the sin not the sinner). --Firefly322 (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Were signed to a notable independent label, I found articles on them from Billboard, and review (not just a bio) from All Music Guide and Their albums have charted in the US, one of them hitting #55 on the Billboard Hot 200. That's pretty notable. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Post closure comment: Actually, Allmusic tends to wait until a couple of reviews before they do a bio. --Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep WP:GARAGE is clearly marked as a humor page. Why is it being used to back up a serious AfD nomination? Townlake (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and trout the nom. Multiple reliable sources exist to assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:12, 23 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.