Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Stunners (group)


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Stunners (group)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Dubious notability. Sources are only primary or directory listings for the most part, and a search for further sourcing showed nothing but false positives. No real notability; just having individually notable members doesn't mean the band is automatically notable. WP:BAND #6 is not and never will be carte blanche if they fail all the other criteria. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Band that has been released by two major labels, Universal Music Group and Lions Gate Music (passing WP:BAND #5; "Has released two or more albums on a major label"), been profiled by MTV and has had other significant coverage by independent reliable sources.  Even was the opening act for Justin Bieber.  Beyond the threshold of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)  Additionally, meets WP:BAND #6 as the nom has admitted with very notable founder and member. --Oakshade (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that the discography does not allege that they have released any albums at all. I make it one EP, one promo single, one proper single and a track on a compilation album. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I think the Bieber connection needs clarification. If they were second on the bill then that does count in their favour. If they were lower down the billing as "other special guests", or the like, then it doesn't. If they got any RS reviews off the tour then that would be a big help. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The MTV profile is a couple of short paragraphs and the rest is not RS. The link to Vitamin C is incidental. The TV series seems not to have happened. The two sources Oakshade has found certainly help a bit. The first may not be RS but the second is better. It is only a local newspaper, and it isn't enough to make this a keep, but it is enough to make it a weak delete. I will change my !vote if anybody can dig up a few more proper reviews or other solid coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Weak delete: Some minor coverage but the MTV source is trivial actually copied from Allmusic plus they haven't had any charting records. Mattg82 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Urm actually Allmusic entry is different. I'm sure MTV used to copy from Allmusic? Mattg82 (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Lack of significant coverage in 3rd party sources is the biggest problem here. Ei1sos (talk) 21:33, 17 January 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.