Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatty Koo (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. RL0919 (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Fatty Koo
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fatty Koo

Band that does not satisfy musical notability or general notability. A check of the references shows that they are mostly trade rags, except for reference 2 in the New York Times and references 3 and 10 in Billboard magazine, which should be reliable sources, but they are not verifiable because they are set up using Proquest, which is a paywalling service. So there is no verifiable significant coverage as of 10 September 2022.

If the Proquest references are replaced by regular links within seven days, they can be reassessed.

There was a previous deletion discussion, which amounts to no quorum with 1 good-faith !vote and a banned user, so that this is a new deletion nomination of a new article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music,  and Ohio. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: You know better than this, McClenon. Have you even read WP:VERIFY? There's a neat little section called WP:PAYWALL. Not being able to access sources behind a paywall is not a reason to discount sources. Aside from that, I found plenty more sources while looking at ProQuest that can support the pages's inclusion. You, as long-time Wikipedia user, should have access to ProQuest anyway through the Wikipedia Library. I'm not sure why this is an issue at all. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * One note about ProQuest: institutions can subscribe to different numbers of databases. I have institutional access to 59 ProQuest databases that TWL does not offer, for instance. It's not like other sources where there is one database to search; it's much more modular. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 05:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I'm able to access all of the listed sources through the Wikipedia Library, so your point is moot. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: replaced two sources' URLs with freely accessible links and they both (NYT and Billboard) appear to meet GNG. –– FormalDude  (talk)  14:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep If one actually takes the time to read these references, it's true Fatty Koo was a crass, marketing ploy and the references are more hype than anything else. By common sense criteria this "group" would be non-entities as far as "notable," and it seems a redirect to the masterminds behind it would be more appropriate....were there wiki articles for such people (or at least the BET show.) And yet, there aren't. And the references about this project are there, and multiple criteria are met. For that reason alone it earns its keep. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2022 (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.