Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fab Four Ultimate Beatles Tribute


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Fab Four Ultimate Beatles Tribute

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

Non-notable band. The article makes some grandiose claims: they perform "all over the world", "started to make it big", "praised by many", "popular", "highly professional and accomplished musician[s]", "popularity continuously ... on the rise", "loving tribute ... has amazed audiences around the world", "across the globe", and of course, "please visit the official website". But let's try to sweep away some of this puffery. First, none of the sources is independent: of 15 links, 7 are the band's own site and 8 are self-published sites or blogs. And second, this "popular" band has just 130 Google hits - not much real-world confirmation of that "popularity". Obvious self-promotion here, so delete. Biruitorul Talk 05:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC) — MissPijon (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * delete. My first impression was to keep, but trying to verify the information provided seemed a bit harder than it should have been. If the information is not able to be verified, it fails notability. Mrathel (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: MissPijon excised this vote that happened not to agree with her position -- a clear breach of policy. - Biruitorul Talk 16:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Someone just has it out for this page for some reason (nominating for speedy delete then immediately nominating again for deletion when the admin decided to keep it!). Frankly it's ridiculous, regardless of what malice Biruitorul has against the Fab Four, let it stay. The creator makes a good point, if the Fab Faux can have a page (and THEIR page is clearly self-promoting!), then the Fab Four can have one. Also the person who made the claim about Google hits is wrong - try searching for just 'Fab Four.' Here, I'll even give you the CORRECT link. The Fab Four and their website, www.thefabfour.com, comes up #1 and has over 1,040,000 hits. In the real world, news articles are considered "verifiable" - not sure what planet you're coming from there. And if you actually looked at the links, I think most people would consider playing for Tom Hanks, Eric Idle, Paul Stanley, Dana Carvey, Billy Crystal, etc., AND playing at places like the Hollywood Bowl and Carnegie hall "notable." How can you GET more notableMissPijon (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that an admin refused speedy doesn't mean he/she thought it was worth keeping. It meant that the criteria for speedy deletion were thought not to have been met (note that they are different criteria than we have here in AfD), or a longer discussion was required. And here we are. Peridon (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - ad hominem attacks aside, let me address your points. First, regarding the Fab Faux, see WP:WAX. Second, most of the hits (at least on the first few pages) seem to refer to the Beatles or other entities, not this band. Third, the "news" articles cited in the article are not from reliable outlets, but rather from self-published sources; see WP:SPS for that. - Biruitorul Talk 16:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have to question User:MissPijon's "keep" recommendation above. The phrase "fab four" did not originate with Fab Four Ultimate Beatles Tribute. That's a nickname that was originally applied to The Beatles themselves. It doesn't hurt the notability of this particular group that they are the #1 Google result for the phrase "fab four", but they can't take credit for most of the other 1 million-plus hits. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone is harping on the name "Fab Four Ultimate Beatles Tribute." If the creator changed the name to "The Fab Four," which if you will read the article IS the name of the group (and has been since 1997), would this settle everyone down? I think the creator was trying to be descriptive with the title, but the name of the group is "The Fab Four."MissPijon (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep it I have seen these guys perform. I can verify that they do play around the world, and you can verify that yourself just by going to their site and clicking on "calendar." They played in Liverpool just last year and Paris the year before. In the next few months they'll be all over the US, from California to Florida to Oregon to Georgia, and up in Canada. Penn Gillette of Penn & Teller introduces their shows. They are a huge part of the Beatles tribute community and this article should stay. I do think the name for the article should be changed to just "Fab Four" or "The Fab Four" though. I think this should be required for this article to stay. The title now is really confusing and probably ticks off other tributes.Jedi1985 (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC) — Jedi1985 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "I have seen these guys perform" is not evidence of notability. - Biruitorul Talk 16:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a Beatles cover band. Cover bands are usually not notable, and this one appears to fail WP:MUSIC.  As far as I can tell, they have not released an album on a notable label, been reviewed in reliable sources (at least, there are none cited in the article), charted a single, etc.  The only claim to notability I can find in the article is their appearance on a few TV shows, but this alone does not confer notability according to WP:MUSIC.  Amazinglarry (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing but PR puffery, absolutely fails WP:MUSIC by lacking sources. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete PR puffery at its worst, clearly not notable. ukexpat (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Puff. I don't regard so-called tribute bands as particularly prone to notability with one or two exceptions. This one isn't one. Peridon (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-notable tribute band. No substantial independent 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: most sources are from the band's own website. Fails WP:BAND. Plastikspork (talk) 17:06, 31 January 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.