Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Original rudeboys


 * 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.  Sandstein  05:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Original rudeboys

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article about a band with no reliable sources. While there is a claim of notability, the lack of sources mean that notability is not demonstrated. The article contents cannot be verified by readers. Prod contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete for now. Despite the claims of selling well and having views on youtube, a search shows that they don't currently pass WP:NBAND. I haven't seen where they've charted anywhere (Ireland or otherwise) or been the focus of substantial articles or the focus of a tv spot. They might make it big one day, but they're not there yet and Wikipedia isn't an advertising tool to help fuel notability. It has to be already established to get an article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Delete without prejudice to recreation if their career takes off. At this point, they have some coverage with this as the most substantial.  They appear to be an up and coming band that's on the cusp of making it but just haven't quiet got there yet.  Good luck to them. -- Whpq (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep substantial feature in ireland's newspaper of record. gig review in irish music magazine Hot Press. the post above has a piece from the Irish tabloid The Sunday World. notability is met irrespective of the status of their career. 86.44.39.133 (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Relist rationale: Relisting to allow for more thorough discussion of the sources provided by 86.44... and whether or not they are sufficient to demonstrate notability. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep (original nominator). First, thanks to the IP editor for finding the sources and to HJ Mitchell for relisting. I'm happy that the newly located sources now show that the band meets WP:GNG and WP:BAND so the article should be kept. Sparthorse (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The nomination's basis is upon the rationale of this band having "no reliable sources", which was nullified by: Irish Times article and Sunday World. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources found.  D r e a m Focus  02:32, 26 November 2011 (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.