Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuckey and Murray


 * 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 no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 12:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Stuckey and Murray

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm not familiar with the field, so I'm not sure whether these two meet the criteria of WP:ARTIST. However, the article itself is fishy based on the fact that was the main contributor, and it is fair to say there is a conflict of interest. Usually we discourage self-promotion. bender235 (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dane2007 (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find evidence for meeting WP:ARTIST (their reviews don't meet 4c), and the article doesn't claim any. For GNG, there are three independent RS with nontrivial coverage available: reviews in the Post & Courier, Charleston City Paper (Cohen) and CCP (Oyer). (There's more in their press clippings, but nothing substantial as far as I can see).) These sources do not have enough depth of coverage to verify basic encyclopedic information like their location, major career events, and influence within their field. FourViolas (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, I guess. Maybe. It's borderline. The Charleston City Paper says "videos like 'Awkward Sex' and 'Auto Phone Sex' (not related) have amassed millions of views" on YouTube. If that's true, doesn't that show evidence of meeting WP:ENT #2, "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following"? Not sure, maybe millions of views is common. If it is common, they might not make the cut. The Post & Courier review is a plus, but the 'Charleston City Paper'' is not worth much, so you probably don't have multiple in-depth references. It does look like a promotional article. I dunno, I better stop before I talk myself out of my vote. Herostratus (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2016 (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.