Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floh de Cologne


 * 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. North America1000 00:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Floh de Cologne

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's no AfD page on Floh de Cologne; let's see if this fixes the issue. A Great Catholic Person (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep the Geman wikipedia article has 3 offline sources that seem to be reliable here Atlantic306 (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have added to the article a link to a substantial discussion of the subject in a Cambridge University Press book, which I think substantiates their claim to notability here, as do others accessible through Google Books and, as mentioned above, in the equivalent de.wikipedia article. (Ah memories: many years ago, a German teacher at school played us their records and tried to explain their satire, though it wasn't really conveying across language/culture.) AllyD (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination "There's no AfD page on Floh de Cologne; let's see if this fixes the issue" is completely non-sensical. Apparently the nominator wants the page to be deleted, but does not even state the reasons. The nomination should be withdrawn on formal grounds. Having said this, Floh de Cologne was an influental German polit-rock / krautrock / cabarett group in the 1960s and 1970s. They were covered in the contemporary media for their rather strong positions, and are still covered in music historical media, even sometimes mentioned in radio features now. So, they are clearly notable and the nominator didn't do his homework before this nomination. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I interpreted the nomination as following through an IP suggestion on the Talk page: in which case the rationale is "fails wp:n (not enough reliable sources)" (with which I have disagreed above). AllyD (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to that page. It makes a bit more sense now. However, it doesn't change my vote for "Keep".
 * Also there might have been some sockpuppeteering going on given that both the nominator and that IP editor are now blocked. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2017 (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.