Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Headfuk


 * 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Headfuk

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't know anything about the subject except what's in the article (I'm hesitant to Google it because of the name), but I'm not convinced that it is notable. Maybe someone from London or England in general can shed some light on its notability (or lack of it). The article's only claim is that it was mentioned in one magazine. Delete.  ~EdGl  04:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources found in a search of the web and Google News Archive. (The results were actually quite safe for work.) --Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not sufficiently notable.--Michig (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  14:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Neither asserts nor proves notability, lacks sufficient sourcing. - Dravecky (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Found one print reference to them, and an interview in partyvibe but none of the other rave collectives mentioned in the print citation have articles here either. Not notable. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * definitely noteable - one of the main groups pushing the free party scene forward in the uk [+ everyone acknowledges them as a formative influence on this scene]. Also connected to about a million other artist collectives, promoters, etc, so have played a big part in the uk party scene... this is much more noteable than most of the self-promoting, thinly-veiled commercials on wikipedia... cheers. phuq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.226.93 (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If it is indeed notable, please add reliable sources to the article. Only then will deletion be reconsidered.  ~EdGl  16:29, 1 April 2008 (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.