Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fukpig


 * 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   redirect to Anaal Nathrakh. Without prejudice to merging verifiable content into the target j⚛e deckertalk 14:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Fukpig

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has no reliable sources for its history, discography, members, genre or origin. The band itself has received little to no coverage from reliable sources and I don't see a reason to why this is such a high-priority band, the members aren't that big of a deal, they have no legacy, and their record label is nothing particularly special either, so I'm confused to as why this is such a high priority article. For these reasons I believe this article should be deleted. 00:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 5.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 00:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails Notability (music bands). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Anaal Nathrakh. This appears to be a side project (all of the members of Fukpig are either members or ex-members of that band). I couldn't find much in the way of sources, but I did find interviews in Clandestine Metal Zine from Chile and The Midlands Rocks from the UK . Not sure what the nominator means by "high priority article", though...it hasn't been featured on the main page or nominated for GA status AFAICT. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 18:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * On the articles talk page it is rated as 'High-importance' on the importance scale for WikiProject West Midlands. 18:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh. Looks like a couple of IPs added importance ratings to the project templates (including the WikiProject Metal template, which doesn't have an importance parameter!). The same IP that added it to the West Midlands template also added the article to the to-do list for that project, but that was removed by a project member as "vandalism". So I'm pretty sure it's actually meaningless and neither project considers it high priority. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 19:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing here, refs aren't anything. Szzuk (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2014 (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.