Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/¡Tchkung!


 * 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. Sources were cited. BuickCenturydriver  (Honk, contribs)  22:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

¡Tchkung!
Notability not established or sourced per WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 Talk  13:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Delete. Search on google doesn't turn up much more than blogs and a few reviews, along with a "future" home page as the first result.  Must be a new act - and performing in Bumbershoot doesn't make you notable, it means you performed in Bumbershoot.  Fun festival, but that's it.  --Dennisthe2 14:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I found this, but I doubt that counts for anything, as the publisher is too trivial. This is quite interesting, but too short. This may count for something, as may this. There is a nice big review here, and a nice article here. I reckon they are notable. J Milburn 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on J Milburn and in spite of the current state of the article. Make sure the article is tagged and remains so until it is cited with some of this stuff.  Take it down in 6 months if it remains uncited thought. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I just tagged it myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 22:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete. Random band that had a couple of releases and a couple of gigs and then broke down. Name isn't even typable on an English-language keyboard. Does not appear to meet WP:NMG or WP:A. To Tony: there are too many articles on Wikipedia to give that amount of time to find sources; better to delete without prejudice to it being recreated if someone brings along some solid references. Stifle (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't think that attitude is based on any policy. As I see it, you just said 'Yes, they are notable, but because this article isn't going to be featured any time soon, it should be deleted.' There are lots of articles on super-notable topics that are very badly cited. For instance, just before I came here, I was reading the Prague article. That is tagged as needing more sources. Using your attitude, we should delete it, and let it be recreated if someone will 'bring along some solid sources'. I am a massive believer in sources, and probably a deletionist, but what you are saying is pure madness. J Milburn 00:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm a little worried about Stifle's familiarity with WP:MUSIC. Rockstar915 17:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This band fulfills WP:MUSIC completely, per articles and #5 (referenced in those articles). I'm not even going to go into specifics, but I'll just stick to the general criteria: The Seattle Times articles: here and here. Those are just two of more than ten. The Oregonian has written numerous articles about the band too; I have access to them on LexisNexis. This band needs to be cleaned up, yes, but fulfills WP:MUSIC and should, therefore, be kept. Rockstar915 17:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per my research, it looks like this article is named incorrectly. It should probably either be "!Tchkung!" or simply "Tchkung!" Rockstar915 17:41, 7 April 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.