Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bent Banana Harper


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Bent Banana Harper

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't any reliable sources that show notability per WP:MUSIC. Also, this article has a lot of original research. Iowateen (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a hoax. The music exists, but it's new(er), and the story is made-up; as a later editor has remarked, this is probably a publicity stunt. (Anyone else wonder if Ben Harper is in on it?) Chubbles (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Delete A7 , or G3, take your pick. The article implies he's not notable.  Assuming hoax, then we can go with that.  Tagged A7. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 01:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no. The article, as it started, implied notability (there's no serious case for A7'ing blues musicians from the 1920s). Then, a later anon, who smelled a rat, fuddied up the language to make the article look ridiculous and call out the hoax. I think he's right, but using a notability argument based on the current revision isn't healthy. That said, hoaxes aren't really speediable; per WP:HOAX, "Suspected hoaxes should be investigated thoroughly, and only in extreme cases of blatant and obvious hoaxes should articles be speedy deleted as vandalism." I may be wrong about the hoax, though I don't think I am, and it's reasonable to allow for five days for someone to try and prove me wrong. Chubbles (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno. "Virtually unknown (and apparently not in existence) for about seventy years, he "came to light" in 2008, when a collection purporting to be rare recordings of him, named Blues Pioneer, was torrented and placed on such websites as Youtube and Last.FM. The recordings, however, are of songs dating from much later than his active dates, and were obviously recorded on modern (post-1940s) equipment." was enough to convince me that this is bunk. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me. You're reading the current version, which has been rearranged by an anon to look silly. The initial version doesn't sound so ridiculous. But again, I do think it's a fake - but the speedying is all happening way too fast. No one, but me, has investigated thoroughly the hoax, and I haven't really investigated it that thoroughly, either. Take five, everybody. Chubbles (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the problem. Everyone's way, way, way, way too freaking cautious here. I think we err far too much on the side of caution. 0.0001% chance that it's not a hoax? Let's let it wade through AFD for a week or longer! We're in no damn hurry. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't want to get personal here, but I spent a hell of a lot of time on this website re-writing articles for bands that had been A7'ed in great haste. Cuts both ways, Ten. Chubbles (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If someone effs up and deletes something that shouldn't be, we can re-create it. I'm not saying we should get deletion-happy, but this total hoax job has been sitting around way too long, and we're forced to keep it around a while longer than it should be, only because one person refutes a speedy. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 03:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You may have a point, Chubbles. I've done some cleanup. It needs work, clearly, but still needs some more data methinks.  Altered my !vote. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 02:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. It appears to be a circular hoax, and not a notable hoax at that. Total lack of reliable sources meants WP:V is in doubt. Plenty of Youtube and other hits, some of which cite WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2009 (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.