Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Aquanettas


 * 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. or tending toward keep. Either way it's being kept. Consensus appears to be that it meets WP:MUSIC and issue of sock has apparently been clarified. TravellingCari 01:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The Aquanettas

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article seems more like a personal memory history of a non-notable band by sock puppet Guitaro99 than a Wikipedia article. The topic fails Notability (music) since the band has not has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. -- -- Suntag  ☼  20:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete Their Allmusic entry is one sentence long. No other sources found; only "references" are trivial or other Wikipedia articles. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wicki, at its core, is about users creating and maintaining entries. If you were to delete this band I would think "lets go on a rampage" and delete hundreds, if not thousands, of entries because a people have never heard of the band/artists/person. Actually the reason for deletion in itself seems like it is personal due to the comment: "personal memory history of a non-notable band by sock puppet." Name calling is not a reason for deletion. As for the band being "non-notable" the fact they have an entry in AMG is notable as many of the bands on Wicki do not. Also the band were on a major indy label (IRS) and they had a video on MTV and I am also sure that when they toured with Nine Inch Nails it was because they were so "non-notable".(Sarcasm intended) People tend to forget that in the wide scope of the world's history the internet is still a new thing and not every single printed resource is online. I know I read about the band in print, I know I reviewed and shot the band and that appeared in print and I know in order for the band to have been signed and toured in the first place there were articles in print on the band. Just because you can not find these online does not mean the band never received press. My vote: Do not delete.Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - external links look like good sources. The stub could be expanded easily. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Xy7   (talk)  00:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The article needs better sources, admittedly, but the subject appears to pass WP:MUSIC. Being included on the soundtrack of a Hal Hartley film gives it cred, too. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I created this article. You can check the article history to verify this. I would also like to state I am not in any shape or form connected with sockpuppet Guitaro99. Admins are more than welcome to checkuser that. I concur with Suntag. The band isn't that notable. Soundvisions said: "If you were to delete this band I would think "lets go on a rampage" and delete hundreds, if not thousands, of entries because a people have never heard of the band/artists/person." You know that's the best thing that could happen to wikipedia right now. A big clean-up is in order. There are too many articles that are lowering the quality of this encyclopaedia. HelenWatt (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. They may have been minor league but they seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Wikipedia has many articles on bands of a similar ilk. Eddie.willers (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. But if it stays, there are problems with tone, which I've marked.  --Lockley (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I know I already voiced my opinion however I also just updated the page and "brought it up to code" as it were. Still a work in progress however I found out the band was on the soundtrack to not one but two films as well as some other bits of info.Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Much improved, Soundvisions1, and now totally credible IMO. --Lockley (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep notable refs listed.(76.94.25.192 (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC))
 * Note: soundvisions is right. Read that input. I saw a piece for Matt Lee (musician) get shot down ,even thought the artist IS NOTABLE AND GAVE REAL REFS.As good as or better than The Aquanettas. I hope that at least this will stay and offer people like Matt Lee the chance to stay too. There is a deleted page that needs some support under Matt Lee(musician) too.(76.94.25.192 (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC))
 * It's not on the bands part yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.25.192 (talk) 09:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that suntag is one of the main people who fired off against the Matt Lee article.Go check the back pages. Some were deleted to cover -up the fact that an inside group played up against the article. They are not the sockpuppets of guitaro99.That never entered the question on this page EVER! Someone is lying. DO A CHECK ON THESE PEOPLE! They are mad at Matt Lee for some personal reason.Helen Watt is Deborah Schwartz of the Aquanettas,thus showing conflict of interest as she is the lead singer of the Aquanettas and has a personal stake here! There are sockpuppets on this site all over the place. Check them all out.(76.94.25.192 (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC))
 * Looks reasonable enough; keep as meeting WP:MUSIC. To the anon above: please, for heaven's sake, don't start claiming that people are deleting articles because of personal bias. I've got the most recent deletion of the Matt Lee article, and I've never heard of the guy before that. Having said that, the Matt Lee comment in this article is uncited, and I've tagged it as such. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough reliable sources to prove an entry on this band is encyclopedic. -Nard 01:58, 27 September 2008 (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.