Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Page 44


 * 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. None of the keep arguments were rebuffed by the delete arguments, plus WP:HEY applies. Mango juice talk 15:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Page 44

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The page is a mess. Questionable notability.   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  23:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have put in the discussion for Page 44 why the article shouldn't be deleted, a wikipedia user who previosly tried to delete the article agreed to remove the delete article tag after my explanation. LukeTheSpook (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a Speedy delete. This is AfD.   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  00:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not quite A7 material but still doesn't seem to have enough notability yet. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above and a mess. Please look at other articles next time.   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  00:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. -  Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  00:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How about instead of trying to get the article deleted, we work together to clean it up? LukeTheSpook (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The consensus is so far Delete. Wikipedia works by consensus.   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  00:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: The creator has removed the afd template. restored by me.   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that, but I really don't know what to do to make it acceptable, i would need some help, i could get lots more information. LukeTheSpook (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just don't remove the AFD tag. It's against policy to do so.   Compwhiz II ( Talk )( Contribs )  01:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * got it LukeTheSpook (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * weak keep the article is a mess, but they do seem to have attained a degree of notability. Cleanup and improved referencing is what this baby needsBeeblbrox (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Don't bite the newcomer. Writing an encyclopedic article is challenging, and no one is going to get it exactly right the first time out.Beeblbrox (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep the article is undoubtably "a mess" but we don't delete articles just because they are not pretty. Notability is borderline - it probably fails WP:MUSIC (unsigned, no chart success etc) however we can't completely discount either the TV appearance or the competition wins although I would like to see these properly sourced ASAP.  nancy   (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Notability questionable, but no one has addressed it either way and TV/reviews lead me toward maybe. The article isn't that bad at this point, and in anycase, a badly written article isn't a reason to delete.  Hobit (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep–They appear to have had coverage in multiple third-party sources; look here. -- Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 23:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   — Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 2 February 2008 (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.