Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Die Antwoord (2nd nomination)


 * 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  C T J F 8 3  chat 21:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Die Antwoord
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Keep keep it. its real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.86.53 (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Non-notable bandspam. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC) --hacky (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems like I'm not completely off the wiki-planet after all... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability was established pretty thoroughly in the last AFD debate. Just because you have not heard of something or do not appreciate its significance does not mean that it is not notable. Does the article need a lot of work? Definitely. But articles that need work should be tagged appropriately (which it has been), not deleted. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and if every article that were inadequately sourced were deleted, few quality articles would ever be written. -zorblek (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Super Keep!* - These guys are blowing up all around the internet, live as we speak. The act's constituents are all well known from previous South African entertainment incarnations.  As a group, Die Antwoord now has several top-end, television quality music videos under their belts as well as a CD released on a decent label.  They are known and beloved throughout much of the Commonwealth Empire and the English-speaking world...  P.S. I am annoyed that YESTERDAY'S deletion discussion was invalidated only to have this new one appear immediately thereafter.  The consensus on yesterday's deletion was heavy on the keep side.  I just spent an hour tuning the article up to higher Wikipedia standards.  Would somebody with authority please declare the matter closed with a KEEP so that we may move on?  Thanks.  --AStanhope (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —zorblek (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  —zorblek (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Die Antwoord has enough Google results that they pass a basic sniff test for notability. Half a million Youtube views (for three videos) in 72 hours makes them no less notable than internet memes that have their own Wikipedia entry. 74.248.71.72 (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep notable in its country and on the way to be a worldwide hit.  Grue   10:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep notable SA band, and currently being promoted by rest of world via celebs (eg. http://twitter.com/serafinowicz/status/8718180195). Jamsta (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The band is definitely notable. By the way what is the reason for the second nomination? What has changed since the first one to require a new one?Nedril (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep how are they not notable? They're all over the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr zoidberg590 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. -ClockworkLunch (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Was looking for information on them a few days ago on wiki, found nothing. They exist, and obviously aren't going anywhere, like it or not, they should be on wikipedia.
 * Strong Keep They are very notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.220.243 (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Surely we can do better than simply saying "not notable" or "very notable", full stop - policy and sources are what count? Anyway, both Reuters and Pitchfork have items on them now, as well as the various South African ones already noted. The Reuters one is currently being used in the article. I don't think we'd be quite as hard on this if it was the latest project that had been put together by established British or American musicians/artists, and which was getting this level of coverage - even if some of it is simply blog/general internet hype etc, which may of course pass in a week's time. --Nickhh (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A few weeks ago, it wouldn't have made sense to keep this article. However, recently they have exploded online and probably aren't going anywhere for a while. I would even say they're notable in the US considering the coverage in American blogs. treyjp (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "DEFINITE KEEP" - This is a valid and soon-to-be-bigger phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winston.F.Armstrong (talk • contribs) 22:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep!* - They're becoming huge, the videos are part of a viral campaign by the record company. Webhat (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I think there's a surge of interest in them. I mentioned them to my South African friend who says they are "vile" but that there is much discussion among South Africans recently about their cultural significance. DanielM (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Keep"* If they have made it all the way from SA to western Kansas, then they deserve an article.
 * Keep I think there's a surge of interest in them. I mentioned them to my South African friend who says they are "vile" but that there is much discussion among South Africans recently about their cultural significance. DanielM (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Keep"* If they have made it all the way from SA to western Kansas, then they deserve an article.
 * Strong Keep They have just been featured on BoingBoing, Times Live, New York Magazine and Washington Post, need to say more? --Classic1010 (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep They have made the front page of Sunday Times and have been interviewed with news24  --FNC (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Strong Keep Also featured by the NY Times: Mrsid (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. -SeanBotha —Preceding undated comment added 14:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC).
 * Strong Keep if we delete this, what should we leave here? --KGyST (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Featured on today's online version of the Corriere della Sera newspaper (Italy) and becoming a worldwide phenomenon. Redgolpe (talk) 11:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep definitely notable, one recommendation though would be to improve the quality of the references, they let down the notability of the subject DRosin (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There are already 4 references, and a quick Googling yeilds almost 800,000 hits, some of which appear to be reliable--such as the New York Times (in cases like this where obviously notable references weren't provided, a deletion nomination is just a lazy editor's way of getting out of doing research). On a side note, the seemingly common kneejerk deletion of non-USAian band articles strikes me as cultural bias. But I digress. Besides, given that this thing's going around Facebook like wildfire, no doubt the deletion nom will fail WP:Snowball in about fifteen minutes. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2010 (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.