Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 1990s


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. SushiGeek 07:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The 1990s
Only claim to notability is having a member who was in a band with someone else who is in a much more notable band. Please refer to WP:MUSIC when considering. I am voting redirect to 1990s but so far as I know the only reason why that is listed on Speedy keep is because the preferred course of action is to be bold and do it, and as I suspect there will be people trying to defend this article's notability, I want it to run through discussion here first. Morgan Wick 22:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Right on the border of notability I think - "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)". Rough Trade is probably THE most noteworthy British indie label. "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable", this holds true as well. I vote weak keep, although it's also worth moving the article to The 1990s (band) and changing the redir to the article about the decade. BoojiBoy 22:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The only assertion of notability is the guy who was in the other band, but that band was only notable because of another guy. I don't really see this as meeting the criteria BoojiBoy mentioned above (a criteria which I don't really agree with in and of itself, anyway). -- Kicking222 00:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Not trying to stir any pots here, but it doesn't matter if you agree with the criteria or not; it's Wikipedia policy. The debate is whether the band meets it. BoojiBoy 00:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't believe I'm about to do this, but I'm about to resort to the favorite of those people who try to defend blatantly non-notable stuff: Notability guidelines are not policy. In any case, Kicking has the right to make, at the very least, brief asides on his opinion on them. Morgan Wick 18:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I think they meet the criteria with one member having been with The Yummy Fur. The Yummy Fur are notable besides having members of Franz Ferdinand, one reason being their being featured by magazines such as Melody Maker and NME  (see reviews section).  However, as far as I can tell, The 1990s only released a single with Rough Trade Records  (see the discography), so that criteria does not apply.  Difficult to google this band.  --Joelmills 02:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. If these guys are deemed not to be notable enough to warrant an article, this should possibly be a redirect to the decade. Capitalistroadster 03:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per Kicking. I don't really buy into the transitive property of notability.  Wickethewok 16:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

2. So what if there new, the way you deleters are going on you would think that there carer would have to be over before they could gain an entry 3. Have you bothered to listen to the music? 4. Just because they are not your cup of tea doesn't mean they shouldn't have an entry, I don't like bananas but you don't see me trying to get rid of there entry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.103.184 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment/Don't Delete: What a load of guff, 1990s are a brilliant band and for you dumb people who obviously haven't bothered to do any research but just want to complain 1. They are recent, 21st century, 1990s is the band name not the decade they came from
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, including WP:BAND.  Also, please don't vandalize pages such as you did to this one.  You can/will be blocked if you continue to do so.  Note that the editors of Wikipedia don't have anything personal against this band.  Wickethewok 17:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * IPs should not vote in AfD debates. The first point makes no sense - we simply believe that "The 1990s" is a likely search term for the decade and we wouldn't want people searching for that to come up with some Scottish band they've probably never heard of, especially if they don't care for rock music. Whether their music is good does not matter (and is POV), and it doesn't matter whether ot not we like them. Morgan Wick 18:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What if we just made the entry The_1990s (band) and do a disambiguation page? Parsssseltongue 17:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - one limited edition single and a few local supports isn't sufficient. Come back in 6 months if the hype has turned into anything more interesting. Ac@osr 17:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Fulfills notability requirements. Parsssseltongue 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: They will be big and if you delete it it will have to be posted all over again, when they do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.103.184 (talk • contribs)
 * Not only should IPs not vote, they shouldn't vote TWICE. Parsssseltongue 17:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It meets the criteria. If anything, make it 1990s (band) or make a disambiguation page. Archibald99 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We are all being lazy here! :) I made an entry for the band myself, and made a disambiguation page (with the aid of Thegraham). Can we close this AfD? Parsssseltongue 20:50, 20 June 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.