Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Matadors

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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Matadors

More band vanity, and yet another example of why the prod experiment is a failure. Bachrach44 02:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment No idea about the notability of the band but 27 mins from article creation, through prodding and deprodding to AfD hardly proves failure of the prod experiment. Dlyons493 Talk 02:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • comment This is far from the first piece of evidence I've seen that prod is a failure. I do some RC patrol, and whenever I use prod I find the author deletes it (without explanation of course), and I'm forced to take it here anyway. I'm probably going to stop using it fairly soon because I don't think I've had it work yet once. I realize there are some people who like, I just don't happen to be one of them. If you want to talk more about this, I'm game, but we should probably find a more apropriate venue. --Bachrach44 03:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since the tag can be removed without comment, prod depends on the author either not being around, being too timid to object to the article's deletion, not understanding the deletion process or accepting that the article should be deleted. -- Kjkolb 07:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• CommentThis band is acutally a really big influence today in psychobilly (which is becoming a massive genre the world over) scene. If you dont believe me...google them. I can elaborate in this article as more info becomes available to me but right now (given what little info ive given) this article and The Matadors do deserve to be in here. Futhermore, when there is information on here about Lord Elgin the 11th earl of Kincardine, you don't see people like Bachrach44 saying that Lord Elgin is being vain do you? This entry IS legitimate, people WILL use this. Davis99913:47, 23 April 2006
• Delete Non-notable band. If they can't make it in the real world, they can't make it here. Fails WP:MUSIC as it is. doktorb | words 17:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• CommentI strongly object, they meet most of the WP:MUSIC criteria. You need to reseach these things BEFORE making these sweeping statements. If need be, I can go through it item by item for you with links to back it up. Let me know Davis999

• comment By all means, please do - you don't even need this invitation. Proving that they meet WP:MUSIC would go much further to proving your case than making random unverifiable claims of notability. --Bachrach44 19:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I certainly would like to know what "Horrorbilly" is - not a genre I have ever heard.. doktorb | words 18:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• cough neologism cough. --Bachrach44 19:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per doktorb and Bachrach44 -- Hirudo 02:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete too low on the Amazon ranking, not notable. Tony Bruguier 03:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not noteable enough, merely a vanity article.StumpyRaccoon 02:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep > Cleanup If cleanup is not done, then delete. Startup account 21:03, 26 April 2006 (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.