Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mouse That Ate The Cat


 * 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. This is potentially a contentious AFD. The nominator was banned for sockpuppetry which should result in a procedural keep. The !votes appear about even which might result in a no consensus. That said, there is an SPA who makes a very poor case. With the remaining three editors, the only keep vote does not make any sort of argument for keeping. The two remaining delete votes make clear arguments to delete based in policy. v/r - TP 21:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Mouse That Ate The Cat

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There's nothing to be found online to prove this band exist, Playlists from BBC and Metro sites are not reliable sources, none of the citations are of any value. The band has no discography. The whole section titled "New songs and live performances (2011)" says nothing of any substance, it just looks like any local unsigned bands myspace page. The ridiculous trivia section was removed, but it shows just what sort of article this is, riddled with pov and devoid of facts.We&#39;re all depressed (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The BBC playlist is a reliable source, but it doesn't establish notability. No coverage, no acclaim that satisfies WP:BAND. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - The nominator was blocked as a sock of The abominable Wiki troll.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 19:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and tag for a rewrite. -Gryllida 23:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - This band doesn't even have any releases yet, much less any successful or acclaimed ones. Only claim to notability is one of their songs supposedly reaching #5 (but note that the cited source only confirms it reaching #13) in something called the "Amazing Chart", which I have to assume is not notable, since it doesn't have an article on Wikipedia.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Don't take stuff like this away - a great way to get people better informed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.172.193.70 (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How does an article on any band(much less one which hasn't done anything of note) "get people better informed"?--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 17 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.