Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Daddy


 * 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. Additional work has resulted in a clear consensus that the two co-nominated articles are sufficiently notable - but no coverage has been demonstrated for The Daddy. ~ mazca  talk 11:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Daddy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

None of these bands are notable per our standards. The bands are comprised entirely or at least in part by the same non-notable members. There is no significant coverage to be found of the bands, and the articles only use the bands' official/MySpace pages as references. They are currently being maintained by editors affiliated with the bands per this report. --  At am a  頭 19:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are comprised of the same members and have the same problems:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  --  At am a  頭  19:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete The Daddy per nom and WP:BAND. Neutral to weak keep on the other two, where there are claims to television appearances for Kubb and major concert appearances for Moke, though both need sources to confirm claims. Conflict of interest is an issue on all three. 99.12.243.20 (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep All. Kubb and Moke clearly pass WP:MUSIC with charting hits, and as such The Daddy has at least a decent shot per WP:MUSIC point 6 at least. As a bundle this is no good; if anyone feels this is worth pursuing they should be separated. Chubbles (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Kubb (band) - lots of hits for "kubb band" on google news, some substantial coverage although mostly behind paywalls unfortunately. I've added one reference to the article. 86.7.19.159 (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC) (Smartse)
 * I see zero hits in Google news. There are hits in Google (to Wikipedia and other spammable sites). Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you check the archive? 86.7.19.159 (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see zero hits in Google news. There are hits in Google (to Wikipedia and other spammable sites). Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you check the archive? 86.7.19.159 (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Moke (band) - can find a lot of references, but again behind paywalls. Can't be certain that WP:MUSIC is met but it is possible. 86.7.19.159 (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC) (Smartse)
 * Delete The Daddy - can't find any coverage. 86.7.19.159 (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC) (Smartse)
 * Keep Kubb (band) since they pass WP:BAND (specifically, item #2) as article asserts to having charted in the UK. Speedy Delete the other two as they have no significant coverage and haven't charted anything that I can find. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 22:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just found something interesting here. Moke (band) appears to be a copyvio of this site, so I think a G12 tag could be applied to the article.  ArcAngel (talk) (review) 22:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article says "From Wikipedia". Chubbles (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All articles say that ., so that does not invalidates my copyvio claim. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All of NME's articles claim to be from Wikipedia? Chubbles (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I though you were referring to the article and not NME. Sorry.  I now see where it says that at the bottom in the NME article.  I have changed my wording accordingly. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete. As spam. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Note:this editor is blocked as a sockpuppet
 * Delete all The articles appear to be part of an Internet marketing campaign, and in a Google search I noticed only free sites that are spammable. I cannot verify the claim that an album from Kubb appeared at #26 on a UK chart in February 2006, however WP:BAND#2 says that such an achievement may indicate the band is notable. Given that Kubb has apparently done nothing since 2006 it seems reasonable to conclude they may have been notable, but they are not. There is no evidence that Moke or The Daddy have any notability (fail WP:BAND). Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Kubb had two Top 40 singles in Britain. They even hit the European Hot 100 with the album and single . There is no way this band can rationally be considered non-notable. As for Moke, I've added several reviews and a couple of news articles to substantiate them on more than one point of WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Kubb and Moke, Merge & Redirect The Daddy to Kubb (band). Kubb's UK chart history can be seen here. There's no way on earth that a band with those hits can be considered non-notable. Former member Ben Langmaid is now half of La Roux (Irish Times (Dublin); Jul 24, 2009; p. 9, The Sunday Times (London); Jul 5, 2009; Dan Cairns; p. 24). I have access to the News UK archive which includes a lot more than Google News, and in contrast to the nominator's claim that no coverage exists, there's loads of coverage of Kubb, including a short article on Harry Collier in The Guardian (May 08, 2007), an article on the band in the Evening Times (Jun 29, 2006; p. 13), a single review in the Daily Record, a substantial article on the band in the Irish Times (May 5, 2006; Kevin Courtney; p. 11), and there were loads more after these. Kubb played at the V Festival, The Isle of Wight Festival, etc., etc. Moke are also clearly notable via coverage, including Allmusic (bio and reviews), Billboard (18 Aug 2001), and via their US hit single (if verified). As for The Daddy, this can be merged to Kubb and redirected for now.--Michig (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete The Daddy, no claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion is obviously not called for here. Given that The Daddy contains former members of two other notable bands, the content belongs somewhere.--Michig (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that both bands are up for AFD, that's a pretty shaky way past speedy. Delete at whatever speed you wish, but by all means delete. Hairhorn (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've done some work on the Kubb (band) article. It is hopefully very obvious now that the band are sufficiently notable for an article, and that a later band containing the band's singer should also be mentioned.--Michig (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've also done some work on Moke (band), which also easily meets the notability criteria.--Michig (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note re. supposed COI: Moke (band) has only had 2 minor edits recently from Wangobango. This article was the subject of COI editing, but by someone else possibly associated with a completely different band named Moke, with the article being hijacked and subsequently reverted. The recent edits to Kubb (band) by Wangobango were also minor. The Daddy is the only one of the three where there can be a serious concern over COI from an editor associated with the bands under discussion.--Michig (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Kubb and Moke, as notability has been established; Delete The Daddy, as I don't believe notability is inherited from the other bands by sharing their members. Robofish (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The way I read item #6 of WP:BAND, I believe notability is inherited, but I am unclear as to if The Daddy can pass that criteria. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 21:40, 14 January 2010 (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.