Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kitchens & Bathrooms


 * 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   speedy keep. Withdrawn Seems I didn't do my homework well enough. Sorry for the trouble. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Kitchens & Bathrooms
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This band doesn't appear to be notable; while they have released two albums on Sonic Unyon, they fail to meet any other criteria for notability, primarily that of sourcing. The article provides only one reliable source, and I'm hard-pressed to find any others on Google; only the first four or so hits are relevant (even after multiple attempts to exclude hits selling remodeling stuff), and none are usable for establishing notability. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 03:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep : Notability for their albums is enough notability for the band. When it is difficult to find informations via Google this one more good reason to have an article here. Profile on Allmusic should help that this is not a hoax : http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:djfqxqwhldfe~T0 --Ilion2 (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's a hoax; I can tell that it's not. It's not Wikipedia's purpose, though, to create new material where none exists elsewhere. Our articles rely on content available elsewhere, and if there's not enough to support an article, we have a problem. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So why deleting the whole article when challeging only parts of the content. By the way, there is no new material in the article that did not exists elsewhere. --Ilion2 (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're saying - I'm contesting the fact that this band is notable, as there aren't enough sources to adequately support an article about them. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Their music albums are availabe on e.g. amazon, so they exists. And their albums are enough notability for the band. So this is enough to write an article about the band consisting at least about the band members, their origin and their albums. I think this is enough for now. I so no reason at the moment to talk about the one or two sentences in the article which you perhaps mean you can not verify with enough reliable ressources. I do not see a constructive discussion about reliable ressources in a discussion about deleting the whole article with strange reasons like "fail to meet any other criteria for notability". One criteria is enough. --Ilion2 (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This band released two albums on a notable label and satisfies WP:MUSIC. Google searches bring up a number of reviews for these albums.  Amazinglarry (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – The band has received coverage in a national music magazine, Chart, has at least one album review in Exclaim!, and there is a 12-paragraph article about them in the Ottawa Citizen (Jul 31, 2003. pg. D3). There is also an article from Jam!  Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 26 June 2009 (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.