Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ernies
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.. CitiCat ♫ 14:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Ernies
Notability concerns are addressed on the talk page. As I feel it has shaky grounds for notability, I want to see if it'll survive AfD before I do any more work on it. For the record, my vote is Keep, citing WP:IAR and the laundry list of "almost" meets.. but I'll accept whatever the community decides. spazure (contribs) 05:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment See also User:Spazure/Current_Sandbox_Project for more notability sources (and a very ugly, incomplete sandbox version of the article in no way meant for the "real" article yet). spazure (contribs) 05:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think you are selling yourself and the article short. I would recommend withdrawing the nom and finishing the article. I think there is enough there to make a case for keeping it, but it is neither fair to you or your article to judge it now.Balloonman 06:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, the notability of the article won't change by me finishing writing it -- all the sources I could locate are already in one of the versions or the other. My biggest concern is I keep avoiding doing more work on it because I'm afraid somebody's going to turn around and delete it.. as it'll end up with more work (in terms of hours) put into it than anything else I've contributed to, but if the sources aren't good enough -- then I'd just be working past my writer's block to ultimately, no gain for myself or the community. Sure, I'd love for it to be kept, but if it's going to be deleted -- I'd rather it go now than unexpectedly later after I put several more hours (and better paragraph organization, etc) into it. spazure (contribs) 07:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Again, I think you are doing yourself and the article a disservice to bring it here. It might not be a clear cut case, but there is definitely a strong argument that can be made for keeping this. Withdraw this nom and make the argument in the prose of the article. Can I promise you that it won't be nominated at some future point? No. Spend the time and energy that you would be spending here defending the article on writing it.Balloonman 08:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Another reason to close it is because even if it passes this "AFD" there is no guarantee that it won't be nominated and deleted later. The key is to establish notability within the article and make it such that people go "Yes, they have notability."Balloonman 06:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the notability of the article won't change by me finishing writing it -- all the sources I could locate are already in one of the versions or the other. My biggest concern is I keep avoiding doing more work on it because I'm afraid somebody's going to turn around and delete it.. as it'll end up with more work (in terms of hours) put into it than anything else I've contributed to, but if the sources aren't good enough -- then I'd just be working past my writer's block to ultimately, no gain for myself or the community. Sure, I'd love for it to be kept, but if it's going to be deleted -- I'd rather it go now than unexpectedly later after I put several more hours (and better paragraph organization, etc) into it. spazure (contribs) 07:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, passes WP:MUSIC, they have released two indie albums.Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 16:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, passes WP:MUSIC by means of several reliable sources if nothing else. I would also recommend closing this discussion, seeing as the nom himself has even voted keep. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - especially if the nom gets the sandbox version into the main article sometime soon. Lots of good refs, and the movie and video game song use would give it a pretty good nudge above the notability level for me. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as per TPH. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 20:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete I'm mostly playing devil's advocate, but I don't really think this band meets WP:MUSIC. They released three albums on minor labels, but only one seems to be a notable minor label. That appears to be the strongest case for their inclusion, but I think it falls just short. Faithlessthewonderboy 01:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- In all honesty, I kind of agree. But I think when we combine the major indie album plus the commercials, that a case can be made. I don't think it is clear cut---but if the article is well written (and it is starting off good) then I don't think it'll have a problem. I still think the Nom is doing himself and the article a disservice by having it here.Balloonman 06:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
*SUPER MEGA STRONG DELETE because nom is an idiot and should spend her time on something that matters, like trying to delete more computer programs because computers aren't notable in her eyes, lol. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.97.182.82 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 17 August 2007.Striking uncalled for personal attack, please read WP:NPA and WP:CIV▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 08:39, 17 August 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.
