Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euphorics Id


 * 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) ansh 666 00:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Euphorics Id

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable sources used. Lack of significant coverage. No notability demonstrated. Use of personal websites as a reliable source. Fails GNG. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC) nominated on behalf of the unregistered user at their request with no opinion on the AfD -- samtar talk or stalk 13:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 6.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 13:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

comment This is the author of the article. How does this article pass GNG? Unreliable sources as per WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:RSSELF. 173.52.99.208 (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - First off, that is not a personal website it is an interview so that is a lie. The other sources are in-depth coverage so you ignored that. The fact new albums represent this pre-Internet band also contributes to their notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

keep Extensive coverage on album and recording of "Hey Joe". This version alone has appeared on five compilations including Pebbles, one of the most prominent album series. I've changed my views of 1960s bands after awhile and see their notability. I also would appreciate if this IP would return to their account, they aren't fooling anyone.ALongStay (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment Making a cover of a song does not make them notable. I can make a cover of Thriller by Michael Jackson, but this won't make me notable. Any citation of "extensive coverage on album? Any sales indication? What makes this band notable? 173.52.99.208 (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * IP (or CA) where do you get off distinguishing what notability is? Dozens of your articles are deleted and I haven't seen one article you nominate be deleted. This is clearly to spite me but it won't work because all my articles will be kept...again.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank for the comment. Seem to be a violation of WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL.   Now this article simply isn't notable.  It states on WP:NRV "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."  Where is the verifiable evidence? 173.52.99.208 (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You know what? I won't take your bait anymore. I'll let the voters keep my article again. I have never met someone so dishonest with no remorse. It's depressing. I'm sorry you feel you have to do this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: I just noticed that this article is nominated for deletion, so I'm a little bit late to the discussion. There are several reasons for keeping.  First of all, this band's work has appeared on several compilations--as a has been mentioned.  Also, the interview that editors discussed was conducted by Mike Dugo, who is the leading interviewer of 60s garage rock bands--he is the head of 60s Garage Bands.com and his work is often included in Beyond the Beat Generation, which is a quality publication.  He does painstaking and accurate work, and his sources can considered reliable. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2016 (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.