Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearl and the Puppets


 * 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   speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW and the fact that the nominator has been blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 12:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Pearl and the Puppets

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am completing a nomination started by 92.24.111.250. This is not a personal endorsement of his/her view that this article should be deleted. Anthem of joy (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This band have not made any progress in the UK market. Their last EP flopped miserably. The album was due to be released last year, but it has not appeared yet and as far as it can be seen will not appear. The band are now only playing to small crowds. There was a small media interest (heavily stoked by record company PR) but this has now faded away in light of the band's lack of commercial success. They have a very small fanbase. PandP2go (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC) — PandP2go (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  --  pablo  15:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The references include non-trivial coverage in The Times and The Guardian: the WP:GNG (and WP:MUSIC #1) are met. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that no other guidelines in WP: MUSIC have even come close to being met. That is the only one. I'd also like to point out that WP:GNG states that "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a  mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity." The articles in The Guardian and The Times were the result of a short term PR push by a record company. I also think it could be argued that one mention in two British national newspapers isn't   "significant independent coverage." The entry in the Guardian's "new band of the day" section is particularly irrelevant, hundreds of bands have been covered in that section and few of them have wikipedia articles. PandP2go (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You only need to meet one of the listed criteria. The two articles mentioned were from May 2009 and Mar 2010 so that was not especially short-term interest. If you want more, try this in-depth interview in The Scottish Herald, or search the BBC to see they have been and still are being played extensively and regularly across the network. They clearly meet notability requirements. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Hmm...it seems something of a coincidence that the (original) nominator is 'PandP2go' and their only edits are this attempt to delete this article (on 'PandP'). Lack of commercial success is irrelevent, as is the claimed size of their fanbase. Most of the cited coverage spans several months, and in addition to those already in the article there's The List, The Herald , MusicNews.com , Daily Record , Evening Times , Daily Star , and this from The Scottish Sun stating that the band won the 'Best New Scottish Band or Solo Artist' award at the Scottish Variety Awards in 2010. An obvious keep.--Michig (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a coincidence. My name is Peter Andrew Pargo, i.e. P. And. P2go (the 2 standing for an R) Anyway my username is irrelevant to this debate. How can you claim it's an "obvious keep" when only one condition under WP:MUSIC is (very shakily) met? PandP2go (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is a coincidence. There's nothing remotely shaky about satisfying WP:MUSIC. This coverage also means that the band easily satisfies WP:GNG. --Michig (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep There are a lot of sources like Pearl and the Puppets: I performed barefoot before Diana Vickers - stv.tv,, . Also, it seems they performed in mainstage in Rockness 2010: . Nimuaq (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You people are pathetic. You see the picture of a good looking girl and you think "oh we need to keep that". If it was an ugly girl you'd be desperate to delete it. I don't want to be part of an encyclopaedia where the editors only condition for notability is their own disgusting and shallow sexuality. You attempt to rationalise this by citing WP guidelines, but I know the truth. You've a consensus based on your shared shallow and base desires. You are animals! PandP2go (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As well as the various media articles cited above, they have a biographical article on Allmusic. AllyD (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - subject seems adequately notable. --Anthem of joy (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: User:PandP2go has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. I think this can safely be closed as a snow keep.--Michig (talk) 10:15, 30 April 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.