Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lez Zeppelin


 * 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 per WP:HEY and WP:SNOW; it is greatly improved. This band tours widely across North America, is a leading band of its genre, and there are many secondary sources that show its notability, thus meeting WP:MUSIC. Some additional tags may be appropriate. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Lez Zeppelin

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

Disputed prod, no justification given when removing the prod template. Article is written like an advertisement of the band. No reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BAND Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Confirm sources and rewrite. There are multiple references made to notable, reliable sources, and until it can be shown that those are false references, there's enough to justify keeping the article. It is poorly written at this point, but that is no reason to delete. fuzzy510 (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet WP:BAND. Dlabtot (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - This group clearly meets the first criteria for WP:BAND, in that the group has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. See the quotes contained in the article from the likes of The New York Times; and a band biography on Allmusic.com. But the kicker for me is the MTV.com news article. Esasus (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: I was going to vote delete but having a look around on Google, there is probably enough on the internet to write up a decent article. It needs a good copyedit with sourcing, not deletion. JamesBurns (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Now has reliable sources. Coverage meets WP:BAND. Major editing needed. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Clean Up. There are enough sources to write an article about this group. I would warn that it may be a copyvio as currently written. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as notability has been demonstrated by the reliable sources now provided. Certainly a non-promotional and verifiable article needs to be written here; but the current state is a worthy starting point for that. ~ mazca  t 18:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I read through the MTV news article, which makes it notable enough. Plenty of other mentions of it in legitimate third party media sources to qualify as notable.   D r e a m Focus  03:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep Passes WP:BAND, fails WP:ADVERT - it reads too much like a promo piece right now. Radiopathy (talk) 17:14, 28 February 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.