Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absolute Whores


 * 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolute Whores

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Unsourced since 2009. Article reads like a fansite. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Full disclosure: I'm the original creator here. Our rules about the notability of bands and the citing of sources were very different in 2004, when I created this, than they are now — at the time, any band that had at least one independently notable member was an eligible topic on that basis alone, and we were nowhere near as strict about requiring the sources to be in the article as long as they were locatable. And the promotional tinge here wasn't written by me, but was added later on by a user named Jptrash (WP:COI, if you look carefully at the names of the band's members). But both WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG have been tightened up considerably in the past twelve years, and my own sense of what belongs here and what doesn't has evolved right alongside them — under the standards that apply today nothing here passes NMUSIC, and while I checked ProQuest just now and got a handful of hits, none of them were substantive enough to satisfy GNG. So it was a legitimate article at the time I created it — but today, it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as none of this suggests better applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  21:37, 7 February 2016 (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.