Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Little Flames


 * 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. Default to keep. --Ezeu 10:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The_Little_Flames, The little flames
Page already exists -- see The little flames. Marysunshine 19:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC); Including both articles in this afd. &mdash;ERcheck @ 20:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|20px]] Delete this and the other article as well as non-notable. Aplomado  talk 19:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both articles. Non-notable group. &mdash;ERcheck @ 19:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - terrible article, ghastly, in fact, but meets WP:MUSIC as they have toured the UK several times. and have played in Japan as well . They appear to be signed to Sony. Ac@osr 20:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Ac@osr, are you referring to the first or second article, or both? If both articles are kept, we'll have redundant entries. --Marysunshine 22:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the first has virtually nothing in it but the second is terrible and also reads as if it were copied directly from a press release so with a copyvio over its head, it would have to go. I'll expand the initial effort with the relevant information if it survives. Ac@osr 08:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep the correctly titled one per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete When there is verified facts in the article they are signed to Sony, they can have an article. Fails to meet WP:MUSIC if that means anything. Dominick (TALK) 17:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Relisted in order to gain clearer consensus. Computerjoe 's talk 15:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - here you go Dominick . No point adding anything to the article until it's established which one, if either, is staying. Ac@osr 17:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. On the contrary, there are very good reasons. The Little Flames article as it stands could have been speedy deleted as an article on a band with no assertions of notability. The other article asserts notability by saying that they have toured the UK in support of the Coral and that they will be supporting the Arctic Monkeys, which would qualify them under WP:MUSIC. The best thing would be to expand the correctly titled article to establish notability to avoid the prospect of deletion. Capitalistroadster 23:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Of the two titles aboved, I moved The little flames to The Little Flames because the latter is the correct capitalisation according to the title bar of their web site, but the former is clearly the better written article. No vote. --Deathphoenix ʕ 06:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if info can be verified. &mdash;M e ts501 talk 17:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, per link above provided by Ac@osr. Much of the article was a copyvio (directly copied from the source above).  I deleted copyrighted material.  No vote. &mdash;ERcheck @ 19:40, 20 May 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.