Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Apparatus


 * 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. Rlendog (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

King Apparatus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG– no charts, no awards, no independent significant coverage. Archetypal (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Archetypal (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, this article was created at a time when Wikipedia's referencing rules weren't as thoroughly codified as they are now — meaning not that they lacked notability but that we didn't have to source articles in quite the same way we do now. In fact, it took me less than ten minutes to track down a number of reliable sources to demonstrate that they do meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, which I've added to the article already — and given that their career predated the days when everything was published to the Internet, it would not be at all difficult to find still further sources with a library search. Keep, and please do give some thought in the future to the fact that being unreferenced is not the same thing as being unreferenceable, especially for an article that was written five years ago when our sourcing rules simply weren't what they are now (and doubly especially for an article that was written by an editor like me, who's quite well-known as being one of the biggest hardass sticklers for demonstrable notability on the entire site.) Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Billboard Magazine in 1994 has more than passing mention, and a breif mention in this book.--kelapstick(bainuu) 21:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – Per reliable sources that establish notability of the topic, which were added to the article by user Bearcat and those listed above by user kelapstick. The statement within the nomination that there is "no independent significant coverage" has been disqualified. It appears that the nominator didn't follow the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 05:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've heard of them, which of course is not a reason to keep, but I was pretty sure that they would meet notability, and the references added by Bearcat (thanks!) establish that they have received the necessary coverage to meet the inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources identified above by Bearcat and kelapstick. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND.  Gongshow  Talk 20:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news archive search shows a heap of results, but most are pay per view and I'm a cheapskate. Found this one though. One pay site says in its summary that the band is a "two-time winner of the CASBY award (the Canadian equivalent of the People's Choice award)".   D r e a m Focus  02:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bearcat. Also need to second Bearcat's note about difference between being unrefereced and being unreferenceable, and to remind that per WP:BEFORE, it is nom's responsibility to do basic source search before starting AfD. Ipsign (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2011 (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.