Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li'l Buck


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. &mdash; J I P | Talk 10:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Li'l Buck
Non-notable band. Google turns up one incoming link total. — ceejayoz talk  23:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz talk [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|24px]] 23:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete don't appear to meet WP:music. Allmusic.com has no information on them. Capitalistroadster 00:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No attempt has been made to establish notability. TheMadBaron 07:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MUSIC--Rogerd 04:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Appeared in Chart magazine's Top 40 charts in 1997. Connected to a more easily Googled band, The Blue Seeds. Meets my keep line on those criteria. Bearcat 00:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Any chance of a link to back that up? — ceejayoz talk [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|24px]] 00:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Chart ' s past charts aren't searchable from chartattack.com, but they do appear on the following station-by-station charts gleaned from Google (and Google doesn't even index these very well):
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Which may not be concrete enough for anybody else's proofline, but given the lack of a fully searchable chart database it's about as good as can be managed. Bearcat 19:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Those appear to be college campus charts. Doesn't establish notability per WP:MUSIC, IMO. — ceejayoz talk  [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|24px]] 19:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * They're the raw data lists on which Chart -- a Canadian music magazine which does fit the WP:MUSIC criteria -- compiles its monthly national chart. So I don't see how they can be held to a different standard than the end product that they directly result in. Bearcat 19:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Chart may be notable, but that doesn't mean everything they ever mention is. — ceejayoz talk [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|24px]] 21:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but it does mean that any band that successfully ranks in their chart qualifies, per WP:MUSIC's qualification that has had a Top 100 hit on any national music chart, in a large or medium-sized country is a sufficient criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you want to make the argument that three citations from the raw uncompiled chart data aren't sufficient even after factoring for the fact that the magazine doesn't provide a searchable database of its past charts, I'm fine with that, but I won't agree that the magazine's regular monthly chart fundamentally fails to meet the stated criterion. Bearcat 22:38, 29 October 2005 (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.