Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darby O' Gill and the Little People (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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 23:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Darby O' Gill and the Little People (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet the criteria for WP:NM, WP:V, and appears to be in violation of WP:OR. This page has no references or citations, an external link to a Myspace page, and it appears promotional Sal Calyso (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral A number of sources have been found, particularly by Tokyogirl79. However, it appears the band only has any sort of notability around the Las Vegas area and WP:NMUSIC suggests you need verifiable national coverage to have an article. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   11:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -  a boat   that can float!   (watch me float)  13:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been having trouble finding any non-local coverage for the band, which is a shame since they sound fun. I'm going to try to dig a little more, but I'm leaning towards delete or userfication if anyone wants to go that route.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are 50 or more bands like this in Las Vegas with a few mentions in alt-weekly papers. While I do recognize those alt-weekly papers as reliable sources of information, it does not mean this particular subject is notable. Unfortunately they do not meet the criteria for topical notability. Their website is a primary source and should not be considered as a source for verifiability. Cheers Sal Calyso (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep- I know we can use it to back up the most minor and trivial of details, but I cringe at using them as a source in any situation. I almost always feel that if we have to use a primary source to back up anything other than a basic detail, that's a sign that the article probably isn't notable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed,Tokyogirl79. Can we get a "delete" vote for the consensus?Sal Calyso (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete/Userfy. I did a search and unfortunately there just isn't enough coverage to show that this band is notable per WP:BAND at this point in time. I have no problem if someone wants to userfy this and work on it until the group gets more widespread coverage or fulfills any of the other notability requirements for bands.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Some coverage in local papers but falling short of the general notability guidelines. Rotten regard 22:02, 7 December 2012 (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.