Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SexBomb Girls


 * 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.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  20:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

SexBomb Girls

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No claims that this group is notable, and there are zero references. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article needs severe pruning (to begin with, I doubt that we need a bio of every single otherwise non-notable member in its history) but the Google News results back up the article's claims that this group has had multiple successful releases and other indicia of notability in the Philippines. I might have suggested merger into Eat Bulaga! but since their success seems to go beyond that show, I don't guess that merger would be appropriate.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  —Arxiloxos (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a notable group with several reliable sources. Sure it may need some clean-up and some more reliable sources, but nevertheless, this passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, any sources is better than absolutely none. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Users that vote to keep an article imo then should also attempt to improve it, simply voting keep this uncited fasnzine promo rubbish is not a worthwhile thing to support as an editor. It should not be kept as it is uncited, the article should be cited and improved over the period of this weeks AFD discussion. I have removed some of the not notable names and the uncited personal claims. Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. If this is really a notable group, then surely those voting keep can provide references to prove it?  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you try Tagalog references? Of course there will be a lack of references due to the group being Filipino, although there will be some. It needs A LOT more sources and cleanup, but this group passes WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please can you provide a single wokipedia reliable citation to support some content to support a claim of notabilty, I have looked and not found one yet. Off2riorob (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As per Verifiability, Tagalog references are fine if there are no suitable English sources. They do have to be WP:Reliable sources and given the difficulty for non Tagalog speakers, it would be wise to offer some explaination or translation where necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Google News has plenty of English reference-able articles. If nobody beats me to it I'd add it later. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 18:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is crap, if no one else does it, I will do it later is an awful keep comment. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's 2:20 a.m. here. Once I clean this up, this discussion is over. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 18:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ETA: Just saw the article, it's bad, but serviceable. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 18:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I have trimmed it to a fraction of what it was, and a user has added a few citations. Imo, if articles are rubbish there is no reason to keep. It is simple to userfy them for a user or even two or three users that want it kept and are prepared to improve it. Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Having a rubbish article is no reason to delete either. As long as it satisfies WP:GNG and is adequately referenced it's good to go. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 18:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea ok. Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If anything, the article doesn't need a trim; it needs a complete rewrite. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 18:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, many thanks to the user that added the citations, User:Bluemask, and I have trimmed the rest. Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2010 (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.