Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chester French


 * 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. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Chester French

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

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

*Delete In addition to the above reasoning I will add WP:ADVERT and WP:CRYSTAL. And that is ignoring the WP:NPOV which is not grounds for deletion. I do not think Wikipedia is the place for press releases. Change to Keep per Tree Biting Conspiracy's updates Mstuczynski (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 
 * Strong keep. Original article was poorly written and horribly POV, but I've cleaned up the article and added reliable sources, so it should be better now.-- TBC !?!  21:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - improvements from User:Tree Biting Conspiracy demonstrate notability; the lack of an album being mentioned is kind of odd, nor does AMG mention any, but I certainly think the non-trivial sources are good enough for this to be kept until such albums are released. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 11:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, good job TBC! TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 17:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Nice work TBC, but a search on Billboard doesn't turn up a charted single, so fails WP:MUSIC in that regard, and there's only a tiny blurb of a mention on AMG, so still fails WP:N IMO in that regard. ArcAngel (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I may be incorrect here, but as far as I know they only have to qualify under one of the WP:MUSIC criteria. It looks to me like they qualify under #1 and #10. #10 being acceptable as it is not the sole claim to notability. Mstuczynski (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, as the references cited in Chester_French provide sufficient evidence of coverage in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of this band's notability per the general notability guideline. John254 16:29, 9 March 2008 (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.