Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mad Maggies


 * 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. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Mad Maggies

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article deleted by prod and contested at WP:REFUND. I've undeleted the article per request but my initial gnews search didn't turn up any coverage. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Right now this is a borderline G11, but since that is probably not available for a refunded deletion we should do this the old fashioned way. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Non-notable band, written as WP:PROMO by someone with I expect huge WP:COI. They simply are not encyclopedic yet (and may never be( ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete at the moment WP:ADVERT and WP:COI are relevant here, article is written very much like an advert, the creator hasn't given any rational for the undeletion. I haven’t found any reliable sources, but it's possible there might be one or two - but as Wikipedia isn't in a habit of deciding things on vague possibilities I say delete unless sources are found and/ or it meets WP:BAND which it seems to fail at the moment. -- wintonian   talk  12:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * About the creator having a valid rationale for undeletion, if an article was deleted by prod then he doesn't need one. If he goes to refund and says "bing bing tiddle bong" the article should be undeleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks, I still say delete though for the other reasons I mentiond. -- wintonian  talk  13:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete, salt and start the bilge pumps for any and all reasons stated above. Reading just the lead paragraph gave me a seizure. Dreck.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was strongly tempted to "NOTDONE" this at refund but I've been arguing at WT:REFUND that a "contested PROD" should be restored regardless of the opinion of the reviewing admin. I'm definitely sticking my money where my mouse is on this one. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2011 (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.