Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reboot The Robot


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Reboot The Robot

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

I see nothing in the relevent google searches for this band's name that resembles a reliable source, as defined by WP:RS. I also see no evidence of notability as defined by WP:GNG or WP:BAND. As such, it does not appear this band meets the minimum requirements for an article, so this article should probably be deleted. Jayron  32  22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and as the "notability tagger". ukexpat (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I see plenty relevant. The band has numerous pages ans presences on sites such as MySpace, PureVolume, Nuzic, Unsigned.com, OurStage.com, Musicreview.co.za, Amazon.com, iTunes, numerous online lyric databases, Youtube.com, eventful.com, last.fm, mp3.com, Shrednews.tumblr.com, napster.com, rhapsody.com, imeem.com, emiestreet.com, myxer.com, facebook.com, twitter, and more. To say that there is nothing relvant when searching this band's name on google is IRRELEVANT. Wikipedia is here to provide anyone with information on just about anything. Just because a band isnt a top 10 artist is no reason to flag a wiki entry for deletion. If all bands fit into your idealistic idea of what a band truly is, the only musicians wikipedia would recognize would be The Beatles and Michael Jackson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.128.35 (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I suggest that you read WP:BAND and WP:RS for guidance as to notability of bands for Wikipedia purposes and reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish otability -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting! No reliable sources eh? Hmmmm. Weird how shred news, one of the leading indie artist and indie review sites is listed as a reference, and look! If you go over to shred news, there it is! PS: Someone alerted RTR to your crusade to take them off of wikipedia, and theyve alerted their myspace as well as their twitter accounts. Youre gonna have 20,000 very angry RTR fans on yo ass!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.128.35 (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not terribly interested in deleting the article over the alternative, which is providing real reliable sources as defined by the page Reliable sources and Notability. Fans of the band are free to provide those sources, but 20000 people coming by and adding nothing to the discussion aside from "plz don't delete my favorite band.  They are sooper cool" is likely to have no effect.  This is not personal, if you have links to reliable sources, please provide them, and we'll reevaluate this situation.  -- Jayron  32  18:09, 15 December 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.