Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pebbly Mammogram


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 15:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Pebbly Mammogram

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Yet again our illustrious admin force us into wasting our time. This is a non notable band that has no claims to fame. Has already grown a sockfarm and speedy should have been granted. Thank you for wasting our time Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, Does not meet any criteria in WP:Band and can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources.  GB fan  talk 14:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, following proper procedure is not a "waste of time." Nor is the use of a prod tag a waste of time. If anything, senselessly converting a prod into an AfD because you didn't like the admin's decision is the waste of time. The article clearly claims importance which is all that is required to avoid speedy under A7.  That said, it seems like it might be a hoax given ZERO Google hits. I would be tempted to speedy delete under that criteria; failing that it is a clear delete.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This was a complete waste of time. go look into the history. The article has garnered a new sock farm and speedys were gting removed. How long do you think that it would have taken for someone to remove the prod? Yes in this acase CSD was the way to go on a non notable band. Now what would you have done different? Admin do have the ability to decifer a claim to notability and if clearly that claim is not valid it does fall within proper deletion procedure. Zero Ghits demonstrate it is a non notable band hence the tag was correct. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, "importance" and notability aren't the same thing. The article makes a couple (likely false, but that is irrelevant) claims of importance: "they have influenced many in the Nebraskan indie music scene", "achieved notoriety", etc.  I would have most likely handled it the same or deleted it as a hoax, but definitely not as an A7. An admin you is speedy deleting articles based on lack of notability isn't doing their job right. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I'd avoid arguments based on Google hits (see WP:GHITS) but even so, the article only claims importance but not notability, so it fails A7 for speedy deletion but also WP:MUSIC to be kept. Regards  So Why  15:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I cannot find any reliable sources to verify a neutral article. And while I'm tempted to point out that the real waste of time on a project that isn't working on a deadline might be bickering at admins who actually follow policy, I'll abstain in favour of suggesting that the nom might want to consider bringing the discussion about the appropriateness of the speedy decline to WT:CSD and let the AfD run its natural course to a most likely inevitable end. MLauba (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment when there is disagreement how to proceed, AfD is clearly the way to go--it is quicker to resolve it in a discussion here than debate about alternate procedures. I cannot judge  notability for this topic, but I'd think we should try to find references to some reviews. I don't see how a creative artist of any sort could be shown to be notable without them.    DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 28 October 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.