Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Still Pending (2nd)

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. W.marsh 19:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still Pending

Article was nominated, but incorrect page created, which I fixed now ([1]). Procedural nomination, no opinion, but it was nominated and deleted also about a month ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Still Pending, but overturned at DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 17). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 23:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is a vanity band that was nominated for deletion, with the outcome of DELETE, last month.Shoessss 23:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete either as re-creation of deleted material or as A7, take your pick. Unsigned kid band. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Not an A7 and not G4 candidate either - I would consider mentions in two newspapers (see the references) a stab at asserting notability. Whether these assertions are true and valid is for AfD to consider. See also this article's listing in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 17 which overturned the deletion on the basis of "new evidence since prior AfD". —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-08 01:41Z
• Weak Delete - well, there's one reliable source here; the piece which is cited no fewer than four times in this article. The other one I can't even access, so I'm not sure what it is says. However, these are extremely weak references - they barely assert notability, and are largely given over to the fact that the band is starting up, and is something of a novelty. I'm really torn - especially since this article is well done - and if I could see the other article, it would really help me firm up my view. As it stands right now, this band doesn't appear to be notable, and this page appears to be almost entirely self-promotional. --Haemo 01:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted however, that the prior deletion was overturned on review. --Haemo 01:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, I missed that one, the link is here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 17. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• neutral/undecided I haven't done this before, so please be nice... But I think they fit the first and 12th criteria for notability for musicians. I said think, because I'm relatively sure they have had two television appearences and at least one newspaper article that seems ok. A few other random things like Podcasts and also on their site there is an interview from radio disney. Also 2 of the kids have sponsorship from big companies (sabian/mapex for the drummer and ampeg for the bassist)... And so it's clear i'm not in any way affiliated with them. Just poking around the web. Thanks! Crashvirus 14:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Not sure why this is up for AFD again, when the previous deletion was just overturned: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 17. I don't really understand what "procedural nomination" means. There are new sources of notability which are not yet referenced in the article. There is a full-page feature article in the Lake Oswego Review that is not yet referenced in this article, but clearly should be. There is also the Radio Disney interview which is available for streaming on the band's official website. The band is also referenced and their music is played in The Mastan Music Hour Podcast. All of these sources should be cited in the article and I would assert that they lend additional credibility to the notability of the band. Again - it is unclear why this has been put back into AFD when the previous deletion was overturned less than a month ago. Stampsations 21:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Procedural nomination means that they have fix and listed an improperly listed afd or one that was sent back here from DRV. Viridae^Talk 23:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed, in this case the AfD page was accidently linked to the previous, already closed AfD discussion. I changed it to this "second nomination" page so we have space for a new discussion. But since I was not the one who nominated for deletion (only the one who fixed it) and have no opinion on the matter, this is called a procedural nomination. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Stampsations, nothing wrong with the article. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 01:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The article is adequately sourced and asserts notability, as required per Wikipedia policy. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 13:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep - band meets criterion 1 of WP:BAND, unfortunately. I'm also against re-AfDing articles after previous AfDs were overturned, unfortunately. Seriously, this page reeks of WP:VSCA, and I don't think they should have a page here, but this meets the incredibly lax criteria set out under WP:BAND and I don't vote for procedural end-runs. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:29, 13 May 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.