Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madame Hooligan


 * 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. There is a clear consensus to delete. Nakon 03:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Madame Hooligan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The sources don't really stand up to scrutiny. We have:

Refactoring by delinking malware in case of accidental click. Esquivalience t 23:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Cruft, cruft
 * Dead link, http ://www.livehouse.ro/artists/madame-hooligan/ (malware)
 * Self-written description
 * Passing mention

What we don't have are the "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" demanded by WP:BAND, and thus we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 23:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep. Reliable looking Romanian sources found from a GNews search. Can't judge simply by what's in the article. --Michig (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Michig, would it be asking too much for you to link to some of these sources? While "keep" voters are not expected to improve articles at AfD, surely the least one can expect is for them to show the links that have led them to believe an article is notable and allow other participants to gauge their worthiness. Merely asserting, in essence, that "sources exist somewhere out there" is not a terribly convincing argument. - Biruitorul Talk 00:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you looked in GNews? . There's no indication in the nomination that you looked anywhere but in the article. --Michig (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * All right, Michig, just what should I look at? The blog post? Another blog post? Or ziare.com, which aggregates everything, regardless of significance? Or perhaps this tabloid-y blog? Or maybe the post from bestmusic dot ro, which is on the spam blacklist? As always, specific instances of quotable sources are appreciated. After all, without sources we can quote, no article adhering to policy is possible. - Biruitorul Talk 13:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How about this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this? I'm not at all familiar with Romanian sources but there appears to be sufficient notability here. --Michig (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete I see all of the sources as either 1- Routine pr 2- unreliable/notable. 10 years from now every band will have more and more coverage as more and more websites pop up. band websites that write about bands is not notable to me any more than an obituary or wedding announcement would be notable. If there were sources by secondaries that were not just band news websites I would be persuaded. But this just isn't a notable band in an encyclapedic sense. they have an article on Wikibands Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't judge the Romanian sources, but the fact there is ZERO about them in ANY reliable English-language source makes me think that they aren't notable. Maybe it's just WP:TOOSOON but since they only had one album six years ago I'm not sure they're every going to become notable. valereee (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Coverage in any language counts just as much as coverage in English. --Michig (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but given that this is an LA-based band, I'd think if they were notable we'd see some coverage in English? valereee (talk)
 * 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.