Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powerglove (3rd nomination)


 * 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  redirect to Power Glove. will protect as well Spartaz Humbug! 03:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Powerglove
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Recreated non-notable page Cazbahrocker (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —Cazbahrocker (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect - This article has been deleted several times now and has repeatedly been recreated. Only new information added is sourced from the bands own Myspace page about future plans for this band. -Cazbahrocker (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This article has never been deleted. -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Amended my recommendation to Redirect, as that is what I meant by saying Delete. Cazbahrocker (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep/Redirect - A few more sources have been added since I first suggested that we redirect, so I'm not sure this fails WP:N any more. Regardless of whether or not it does, I don't think we should delete; it's still a likely search term for users interested in the Power Glove. If anonymous reverts are a problem we should consider semi-protection. -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those sources were added during the previous AfD discussion and they were deemed to be not be reliable third party sources (blogs, online zines, etc).Cazbahrocker (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - There are a lot more references now than there were when the 2nd nom was done. So, there may be notaility established now that wasn't before.  I am nto sure whether the references meet the requirements though, so I am withholding judgement.  If they do, then obviously keep, if not, restore redirect. Although the redirect has been overridden, that is hardly abusive give the added references provided (even if they prove not be adequate under WP:N). Rlendog (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed that there are more references, but I am still not seeing anything that meets any of the notability requirements on WP:MUSIC. Most of what was added talks about future albums from their own Myspace page, or links off to non-notable blogs. The diff between the article as it stood when it was redirected to before I started this AfD does nothing to further establish notability, in my opinion. Cazbahrocker (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - The only criteria this band has for notability is interviews with various magazines none of which seem to be notable in themselves. They fail every single other criteria. If more interviews and coverage could be found in more notable publications this would be keep PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect and semi-protect considering the history. This has been turned into a redirect twice already based on AfD consensus only to have both reverted. Recommending WP:SNOW by analogy to WP:CSD G4, as there is no material difference between the version the last AfD addressed and this one. Tim Song (talk) 15:35, 29 July 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.