Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coolplay


 * 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. JForget 00:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Coolplay

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:BAND. Outside sources cited are only trivial mentions. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Some sources have been added, but there is no evidence of non-trivial coverage. snigbrook (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Perhaps merits similar review. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 18:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the band has titular coverage a major national newspaper (as per citations), plus extensive mentions in other notable sources. They have apparently headlined Glastonbudget also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjlockley (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Playing at a cheap festival for tribute bands in a field in Leicestershire doesn't make them notable.--Michig (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As a tribute band, they're notable. Your criticism seems to be equally applicable to all tribute bands. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Tribute bands that receive multiple significant coverage in reliable sources are notable. Those that don't are not.--Michig (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please could you detail how the coverage cited fails the above test? There has been multiple instances in major sources. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref 1 is to their own website and therefore not independent, 2. says nothing about the band other than they're appearing, 3. (despite the title) also says nothing about the band, 4. is a reference to what exactly?, 5. is about the venue and simply mentions that the band are playing there, 6. again simply mentions that Coolplay are on the Glastonbudget bill, 7. is the same as 1. None of these constitute significant coverage of Coolplay. See WP:N for what constitutes significant coverage: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". The sources cited contain only trivial mentions.--Michig (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, no evidence of significant coverage from WP:RS, as outlined by User:Michig above. -- Kinu t /c  17:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I went through the references individually, and came to the exact same conclusion as Michig, including a big WTF on reference 4. -- Whpq (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Belete, even if they've got an ex-European Cup hockey player in the lineup, that still don't cut WP:ENT Josh Parris 02:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as this does fail WP:BAND, still.  JBsupreme (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: There are enough eliable sources to establish notability criteria, however, all those sources don't have any significant information to warrant an article. Suede67 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 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.