Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wedlock (band) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Wedlock (band)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:Promo/WP:SPAM/WP:PAID(?) - Article is continuously edited by a long list of blocked and banned spammers, sockpuppets, etc.

WP:GNG - Not notable

Failed Good Article with a closing comment of "I'm not convinced they are even notable." here

Was deleted in an AfD back in 2007. Only to be resurrected and then heavily edited by aforementioned gangs of spammers. PeterWesco (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * '''Delete""". Articles like this should be zapped. Peter Wesco and I are trying to do just that, right Pete? You best know I AM a sockpuppet of ALL such sock puppets.I don't care who knows it now, either. So let's get to the deletion portion of the process, shall we? I've already weighed in as to why it should be gone, and Pete knows it. So use your good sense and do what's been asked of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennisbrowner (talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advert constructed by a bunch of sockpuppets. Allmusic is the only independent source used and that just has a short cursory mention. The Village Idiot (RS?) is just the band talking about themselves. Bearded Magazine (RS?) is just the band talking about themselves. Previous GA status was from a bunch of socks talking to themselves. duffbeerforme (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You might like to rethink that last comment or at least back it up. I gave the article its GA status and am no mans sock. AIR corn (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay some digging found an ANI discussion and a sockpuppet investigation. It is possible that many of the commentators at the reassessment were socks and was something I did not check for. I didn't pass the article based on numbers, but if this is kept and someone wants to put it through another reassessment then that is probably for the best. AIR corn (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not everyone involoved in the disussion was a sockpuppet. Some were innocent parties doing the right thing. Aircorn is not on the list of possible sockpuppets. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, because the band may be notable. It doesn't seem to meet any of the WP:BAND criteria, however. I'll add that several related articles to this one would likely be deleted as a consequence of this one being deleted: Paul Allgood Exogamy (album) Continuity (album) Witnesses EP I agree that while the sourcing disqualified the article from being speedy deletion, the sourcing is poor. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  21:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Some of the history here is a bit confused. The article was failed by here following this review Talk:Wedlock (band)/GA1. It was then brought to WP:GAR where I became involved with it. Jayjay actually asked me at my talk page, but I am pretty active at WP:GAR so would have likely done so anyway. The reassessment can be found here. I passed the article after about a month of reassessment . Anyway that is all rather irrelevant to the AFD as notability is not a criteria articles are judged on so the GA status of this article  should have no bearing on the result. AIR corn  (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to agree with Duff that the best source is Allmusic and it is probably not enough for the article to stand on its own. AIR corn (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. I've looked for sources for both Wedlock and 105 Deckowls (which is what this band is also known as) and found nothing reliable bar the 3 sources from Allmusic . If they had received coverage elsewhere in reliable sources then I'd lean more towards keep, but as it is I think they fail WP:BAND. — sparklism hey! 10:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't pass our band guidelines and is apparently being used for promotion. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I know my review was kinda sloppy and could have been expanded but I really didn't think it was GA quality at the time. I don't think the article should have been promoted but the re-assesment dragged on too long and I was tired of dealing with it. As for the sockpuppets, they didn't even cross my mind (although I was suspicious about the SlowFatKid). Regardless of all this they aren't notable so it should be deleted  Jay  Jay What did I do? 18:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. — Joaquin008  ( talk ) 21:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep this article, but delete the rest of the articles nominated for deletion in the walled garden. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What and for what reason should this be kept?  Jay  Jay What did I do? 16:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:SNOW PeterWesco (talk) 21:24, 7 May 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.