Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/And One


 * 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. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

And One

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Okay I'm going to bite the bullet and nominate this. Appears to be a moderately successful and long running synth band. Virtually every single, album and band member has had an article on wikipedia at some point, and virtually every one of these articles has been deleted for plain notability. This and the lack of sources, or even assertions of notability in the articles lead me to think that the band itself may not be notable.

Nom includes:
 * And One
 * And One discography
 * Bodypop
 * Aggressor (And One album)
 * Any other And One articles which are lingering. Bob House 884 (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  —  D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 17:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep This band absolutely passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. They have had plenty of coverage in secondary sources, but it's difficult to find the sources in Google because the words in the band's name are so common.  Billboard called their first single, "Metal Hammer", a "significant club hit".  They have released albums on two notable labels, Metropolis Records (Bodypop) and Virgin Records (Virgin Superstar).  According to the book Synthiepop - Die gefühlvolle Kälte (in German) by Dirk Horst, they were honored as the Best New Artist in Germany in 1991.  I would be okay with merging the two album articles into the main band article, but keep the discography page as well. —Torchiest talkedits 17:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could I suggest that somebody includes these sources in the article? Having said that, I'm not sure an appraisal of one single in a 20+ year career as 'significant' (which I don't think is a very complimentary turn of phrase in the music journalism industry) and one award makes this anything more than a borderline case.. certainly not a speedy Bob House 884 (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Added, and I stand by my speedy, as the band has had multiple singles chart in Germany, sometimes simultaneously. Here's an interview from 2006 from side-line news as well. Like I said, it takes a little doing to get past the initial barrier to finding information, but there's plenty out there, enough to eliminate any doubt with regard to either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. —Torchiest talkedits 19:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep the band article and discography, in agreement with Torchiest above. There is a potential problem here with the nominator linking all the AfDs into one combined proposal. As for the individual albums, there might be valid reasons for calling for deletion or redirects based on weak coverage. Therefore I suggest that deletion discussions for the albums be de-linked so editors can debate their notability in separate discussions. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 17:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You can !vote delete for the album articles if you wish, this is certainly not all or nothing and a compromise may be appropriate here. Bob House 884 (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - These are definitely a significant band for the scene! It's unfortunate that their heyday was before the internet really took off, and thus it's harder to find information on them (plus the unfortunately difficult to search on name). Dryfter (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Add Allmusic to coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sufficient career accomplishment to merit inclusion. Rather than parsing articles about bands from the 1980s and 1990s, we should all be minding the New Articles gate for self-promotional articles about insignificant bands from the 2010s, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2011 (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.