Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furny


 * 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. The subject lacks reliable third-party coverage. Early use of Creative Commons licenses does not corroborate its notability, neither do the self-published sources. PeaceNT 07:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Furny

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

speedy declined by admin per creator's comment on talk page, which basically amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. no indication this band is notable, web references are trivial or irrelevant.  tomasz.  12:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - All the sources come from the band itself, there are no secondary sources asserting notability under WP:BAND. Darksun 14:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete primarily on grounds mentioned in previous vote - all references/sources are primary to the group/band in question, and no secondary sources (which may have indicated mild notability) are used, thus one would be led to assume such notability does not in fact exist, or is incapable of providing strong referenecs to validate the article's existance. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and source it properly. – Mike . lifeguard  &#124; @en.wb 03:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep to allow time for sourcing. Texasfirebrand 04:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep there are dozens of bands on Wikipedia with less comphrehensive articles, and the fact that that licenses ALL it's materials in a way that is compatible with Wikipedia is noteworthy. SamFlans 10:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The notability guidelines require objective evidence to support notability claims and this article has none. Darksun 14:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Band is notable for early use of alternative licencing. Rob Myers 10:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Band are known for their licensing, their use of PD sources and their humour. They have plenty of sources. Mattl 10:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you know of reliable sources, please add them to the article, because I can't find any. Just saying that there are 'plenty of sources' does not make it so. Darksun 14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What would that be for a band? This is a band who is not signed to a major label? Mattl 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Any of the criteria here. Something like coverage in a newspaper or magazine would be sufficient, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Darksun 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the use of their licensing may indeed make them notable, but only if there are reliable secondary sources discussing it, which as far as I can see is not the case. If reliable secondary sources are added, I'll widthdraw my delete vote. Darksun 14:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll second that if valid sources mentioned above are indeed found, i'll also withdraw my deletion. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep band is a user of the Creative Commons Licence for their music, and a similar licence was in use before the CCL was even invented. See external link Geekroick 23:13, 6 November 2007 (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.