Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bar Wizards


 * 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,  Nakon  05:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Bar Wizards

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

Losers of a TV-show, WP:BLP1E very few sources. Otterathome (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Afkatk (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep If the whole of the UK have heard of them through a talent show, then how can anyone say they are not notable? Clearly passes WP:NOTABLE, and just about passes WP:NEWS which it definately did back in '07. &#91;&#91;Andrew RACK&#93;&#93; (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. 1) While they're not musicians, WP:MUSIC criterion 9 "Has won or placed in a major [music] competition." should apply. They're not just any loser, they were finalists. 2) BLP1E doesn't apply since they were not just competitors in BGT but also made several noteworthy appearances afterwards. 3) The references meet WP:GNG since they're from a variety of sources and cover a time range long after the BGT competition. - Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Yes they are not musicians and BGT is not a major music competition, it's a talent show. 2) what noteworthy appearances are they? 3) all the sources are within 4 months of each other, so you are wrong there.--Otterathome (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) They might not be musicians, but BGT is a major competition. Notable judges, large prizes (lots of money and contracts), massive audience. 2) Read the article. 3) I find 4 months long, you think it's short. We'll have to agree we disagree there. - Mgm|(talk) 12:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it wasn't a major competition, I just said it wasn't a music competition. Currently, it barely passes the standard WP:NOTABLE guidelines. Source 1 isn't substantial coverage, source 2 is dead and from the official BGT website, source 3 is ok and source 4 is from the University of Hull website about the opening of their bar. It is all very WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS sounding.--Otterathome (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Clearly passes'? Well if it clearly passes then where's all the substantial coverage?--Otterathome (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2009 (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.