Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cellophane (band)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Cellophane (band)

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

Fails WP:BAND; content is copied from the band's Myspace page. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Just another non-notable myspace band. Keep passes WP:MUSIC & C5. How the hell I missed the Allmusic entry in my searches God only knows. I need to clean my glasses me thinks. Sorry for that Team.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 02:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: no significant independent coverage, possible copyvio, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 01:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

They were at ozzfest just trying to make a page that could be helpful but just delete I've never heard about the band till yesterday. Then Delete it this is taking way to long you say you want to delete it well are you rubbing it in my face or do you like to drag it out. Captain Chrisma come to RAW (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that qualifies as Speedy Delete per G7. Somebody want to close this? Nikkimaria (talk)
 * Not so fast, please. There is at least one reliable source, a review of their debut album at Allmusic. It also seems that said album, Cellophane, was released on a major label, Virgin Records, in 1997, and their second album, Wandering Man, released in 2000 on Universal/Polygram. On that basis, I'd suggest that WP:MUSIC is met, so I'm voting Keep, despite the article creator's protestations. sparkl!sm hey! 16:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, I've tried to improve the article a little by adding some refs and cleaning up - hopefully this is worth another look now. Thanks sparkl!sm hey! 20:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep – In addition to what others found, I also found an article about this band in The Herald, which I added just now. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sources found demonstrate notability.--Michig (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The new sources warrant the article inclusion under WP:V. ƒingers on  Roids  22:05, 23 April 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.