Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Free


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The Free

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was almost entirely copyvio (removed, see history). Band does not appear to be notable. Web search does not turn up coverage in reliable sources, band has not had major chart success. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 09:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 09:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep . Meets WP:BAND criterion #2: Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid reason to keep an article about a band. Note the header of that section: "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." (emphasis added.) It does not say "are notable".


 * In the header of that page, please read this: "It is not enough to make unsourced or poorly sourced claims in the article, or to assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability through the use of reliable sources, and no criterion listed in this page confers an exemption from having to reliably source the article just because passage of the criterion has been claimed.– Jonesey95 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes that's fair, the SNG criteria support the presumption of notability but do not replace the GNG. It's also true that I haven't been able to find any reviews of this band or their work in reliable sources.  What I did find are three profiles of this band on what appear to be fansites:, , .  The danceartist page quotes an interview with Charles Simmons, but I couldn't find the interview online.  The fansites are not reliable sources, but those plus the charting singles, plus the three other Wikipedias with articles on this band, plus the fact that this band was from the pre-internet era, lead me to believe that there are offline sources (probably in German or Russian) covering this band.  It's all guesswork though, so I'll change my vote to a weak keep.  Deleting this article would be no great loss.  --Cerebellum (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The national chart hits, while not huge, demonstrate sufficient significance for inclusion. I wouldn't expect a Google search to find much on a German Euoropop group from the mid-90s, but German print coverage from the time is likely to exist. --Michig (talk) 09:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Coverage needs to be demonstrated, not just asserted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The chart placings are sourced. That's enough to make the group worth including. --Michig (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No. See the guideline text cited above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:N - notable if either the GNG or the SNG is satisfied. We have a reliable source for the chart placings, therefore the notability is documented via a reliable source. --Michig (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The SNG guideline text is cited above. The article as currently written does not satisfy either GNG or the SNG. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in, but I understand the text differently - to me no criterion listed in this page confers an exemption from having to reliably source the article just because passage of the criterion has been claimed means that you have to provide a source verifying that you've met the criteria.  You can't just say a single charted, you have to source that claim.  The link to Offizielle Deutsche Charts verifies the claim and thus meets the SNG.  --Cerebellum (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2017 (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.