Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metalchicks


 * 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. MuZemike 17:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Metalchicks

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Per WP:Music, states itself as a supergroup but does not give any indication of why the two members are notable. Sources are mostly vendors.  SKATER  Speak. 17:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Both members' bands have wikipedia articles. The band has also done soundtrack material for a Japanese film. I have actually requested on the talk page that we need some actual Japanese sources, as I do not speak the language myself. As far as WP:MUSIC, they satisfy points 1, possibly 2, maybe 4 (they played at the SXSW festival in the USA), 5 (two albums released in Japan), possible 6 (although the two musicians aren't notable enough to have their own pages - this is not the claim for notability, but I think it still counts as a supergroup, in the same way that Tinted Windows (band) does), possibly 10 (assuming the film is notable), and probably 11 in Japan. Is this not sufficient? Luminifer (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - One member was part of 2 notable bands (DMBQ and OOIOO); the other is a former member of notable Buffalo Daughter. So this meets WP:Music #6. I also added six more references. 'Supergroup' might be a little strong for Metalchicks, but that is not a reason to delete the article. That part could be reworded. Clubmarx (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —Clubmarx (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the nomination. BC Rocky (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because a group is not a supergroup does not mean it should be deleted, and the second claim in the nomination is that the article is all vendor sources, which is now also untrue. So what is the exact reason you are agreeing with here? Thanks.. Luminifer (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -Seems notable enough. I can see there may be a problem getting references due to need for translation. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The group now clearly meets WP:MUSIC thanks to some good detective work. Chubbles (talk) 23:55, 29 September 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.