Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swizzle Tree


 * 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Swizzle Tree

 * — (View AfD)

Was tagged with. I deleted, and I recieved a message to my talk page saying that the person who proposed tagged with an intent of saying it failed notability requirements (not a speedy reason). I double checked by looking at the edit summary of the tagger (''19:28, December 4, 2006 Walter Görlitz (Talk | contribs | block) (Appears to meet the requirement of non-notable. No national tours. No releases on major lables. Also removed gratuitous band names)''. For this reason I am going to seek second opinions on whether we should keep this or not. No Stance (Talk —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete Article does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. CSD A7. It would be impossible to assert a subject's importance if it's not notable. This is a speedy reason. --Walter Görlitz 12:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:MUSIC (no awards, only one album, no reviews) so delete. Jayden54 22:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- the template states "it is an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject." Thus, by linking to Notability (music), it is automatically calling into question the notability of the subject and whether or not the article asserts it.  The edit summary is immaterial to whether or not the article meets criteria for speedy deletion.  The template indicates that the article failed to assert notability.  Because the article did indeed fail to assert notability, it meets the criteria for speedy deletion CSD A7 .  The initial speedy delete was proper.  SWAdair 09:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - it was the proper call then, and it's the proper call now. This should have been handled at Deletion review instead. The worst that could have happened is for them to bounce it here. B.Wind 02:01, 7 December 2006 (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.