Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kunt and the Gang (band) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kunt and the Gang (band)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Borderline notability. Well-referenced, I suppose, but the references themselves are mostly only passing mentions to what is, frankly, a non-notable pub band. THe band regularly edit the article themselves. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No matter how it's sliced, diced or knuted I'm just not seeing compliance with WP:MUSIC. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and above. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable via significant coverage, which I'm guessing neither the nominator nor either of the above looked for, i.e. the references already in the article (The Guardian, NME, Bizarre magazine) plus these: The Guardian, Rolling Stone, NME, The Skinny, The Skinny, Blend Music, Edinburgh Festival Guide, The Mag. Non-notable pub bands generally don't tour nationally and play at festivals and release four albums. And since when was "THe band regularly edit the article themselves" a valid reason for deletion?--Michig (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC) See also the genuine coverage on the band's website which adds a few more sources (here), as noted in the previous AFD.--Michig (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was looking at the sources available, but I'm not sure they come up to the required standard:


 * 1)  is barely more than an advert.
 * 2)  is trivial.
 * 3)  doesn't load.
 * 4)  and  are both very short website-only reviews from a regional free magazine.
 * 5)  isn't about the band, it's about a local school's issue with the band name, making the coverage trivial.
 * 6)  is an advert for someone at the Edinburgh Fringe, from the Edinburgh Fringe guide. Everyone performing there gets a mention, notable or not.
 * 7)  is written by a member of the public, not a journalist.
 * 8) The sources mentioned on the website aren't notable either - take a look at them. Nothing more than one-sentence reviews and trivial mentions about the shock factor of the name. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. is not an advert. Guardian journalists do not advertise bands. 2. is a brief mention but well beyond the definition of trivial coverage found in WP:N. 3. loaded when I found it - the NME homepage doesn't load at the moment so this shouldn't be held against it as a source. 4&5 are from a valid reliable source (The Skinny (magazine)). 6. is about the controversy over the name but includes borderline significant coverage of the band. 7. is from a festival guide - the guide includes critical reviews as well as discussing forthcoming events - it isn't an advert. The additional sources on the website go well beyond trivial mentions and sources such as Bizarre, thelondonpaper, NME, Metro (well beyond a one sentence review), and Bent are perfectly good examples of significant coverage - I don't understand the argument that these are "not notable" - if you are suggesting the publications are not notable, I don't think that argument holds water, and in any case is irrelevant.--Michig (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand some of your points - 1. Is barely more than an advert. I never said it was an advert. 2 is especially confusing, because WP:N doesn't define trivial, it defines 'significant' - which source two quite obviously isn't. It's a one-sentence mention in a huge article. If you can come up with some decent sources, I'm happy to keep the article - but at the moment it's a magnet for self-promotion. All the references given so far are either 2-inch long column reviews, about the band name, or written by a member of the public. The band aren't, as far as I can tell, even signed to a record label - except for Disco Minge, who are run by the band, and were created because "No other label would touch with a shitty stick Kunt and the Gang’s toilet and nob gag obsessed punk-synth-pop". A good band? Probably, yes. Notable? Not unless we get a few decent-length reviews in NME or the Guardian. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

*Delete I Can't seem to fit this band in the criteria for WP:MUSIC so i agree. And the name of the band is just indecently vulgar :/ DeletionMojoMan (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Michig's sources demonstrate that the band has received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, meaning that the band meets WP:MUSIC. sparkl!sm hey! 14:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. If anyone comes here arguing that the band's name is offensive, or that the article is " a magnet for self-promotion", that is going to be ignored by any decent closing admin. There is plenty of coverage to pass WP:GNG, and easily WP:BAND criterion 1.--Michig (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Offensive name or not, they aren't notable. 71.3.53.121 (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)User:71.3.53.121 made 19 WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:JNN AfD recommendations in less than 30 minutes after being templated as a single-purpose account on WP:Articles for deletion/Chain smoking — Rankiri (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as insufficiently notable. Band has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources. — Satori Son 15:20, 10 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.

If you don't like it you haven't got to listen to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.63.210 (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)