Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghosts (band)


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-28 14:13Z 

Ghosts (band)

 * — (View AfD)

Oh, where to start. Fails WP:NOT - The group's debut album has not been released, so fails the crystal ball test. Fails WP:BAND - The group has not released any records under a major label yet (but may release its debut in 2007). Violates WP:COI - The article was created by the band's new label User:Atlanticrecordsuk. Bobblehead 10:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Quite clearly non-notable. Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  10:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Fails WP:BAND. James086Talk 10:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Barely any notability even asserted, much less found. -- Kicking222 13:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MER-C 13:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and the above. Eddie.willers 13:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BAND, probable conflict of interest. If "their harmony-drenched guitar-pop anthems will be impossible to avoid", then they should have a page...after they become notable.  —ShadowHalo 02:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:NOT doesn't apply, WP:COI is not a reason for deletion.  WP:MUSIC/WP:BAND?  Well, they have a national tour of England scheduled in a few weeks.  Their song "stay the night" was played on Gary Crawley's show on the BBC.  They are signed to Atlantic Records, too.  I think they barely meet the WP:MUSIC standard, and if they don't today, 24 Dec, they will soon and this will likely be recreated, so what's the point? --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That this article is about a non-notable band is fairly clear. That their notability may or even probably will change is not a reason to keep it for now. The point is that what if they fail to become notable? Saving the time of recreating an article is not a good reason that we, as editors, should assume future notability. Charlie 07:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See, I'm not convinced that they're a non-notable band now. If they definitely miss WP:MUSIC, then there's a problem with that guideline.  Non-notable bands simply don't get major label record deals, and having a hard-to-Google name isn't helping. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Because they are not yet notable: WP:MUSIC certainly applies. The author pretty much admits as much, right in the article: "You might not be familiar with them yet, but trust us - in 2007 their harmony-drenched guitar-pop anthems will be impossible to avoid." Charlie 06:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

--While their entry is written from what looks like a biased perspective, they are the download of the week on itunes; what weight that gives them as a notable band is debateable, but still, something to keep in mind.
 * Delete Non-noteable band. Davidpdx 13:23, 27 December 2006 (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.