Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Town Pants


 * 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. L Faraone  01:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Town Pants

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No assertion of notability; no third-party sources whatsoever; does not meet WP:MUSIC. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, I agree with the nominator, there is no notability established or demonstrated for this band.  PK  T (alk)  01:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, exclusively self-published sources; fails WP:BAND. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete One day they may become notable but they do not seem so now. Even one of their self-published sources do not work. &mdash; Σosthenes 12  Talk  17:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12
 * Delete non-notable, per WP:BAND. However, I disagree with the above: I'd say if the band still isn't notable after 17 years(!) it almost certainly isn't gonna be. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair, this is a band that garnered a lot of media coverage in the early 2000s — but not all of that coverage would necessarily still show up in a Google search in 2013, because print content wasn't yet consistently published to the web and even some of the stuff that was has since gone offline. So referencing it properly would probably entail a trip to the reference library to dig into print archives. However, as things currently stand there are no sources being cited besides the band's own website, and the band hasn't garnered anything like the same volume of coverage more recently — so there are no sources that can be found easily to Heymann it up within the immediate deadline. So, in other words, they're a band that probably are notable enough for inclusion in principle, but whose article in its current form doesn't actually demonstrate the fact at all. I'd like to argue "keep", but the lack of Googlable sources means I can't mount a substantial or credible or properly sourced argument at this time; all I can argue right now is that I believe that valid sources are out there somewhere. So I have to go with the delete side here, albeit without prejudice against a future repost if somebody's willing to invest some time and energy into digging out archival print sources. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2013 (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.