Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Me At Six


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You Me At Six

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No external sources. Singles apparently privately released. Fail notability test of WP:MUSIC. Multiple speedies under this article's belt, so let's put it down for good with an AFD. Kww (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A7 and salt. No assertation of notability, no reliable sources. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 23:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 23:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tag deleted. It asserts importance (toured with Paramore, etc.), so it isn't A7 material. Unfortunately, notability issues can't properly be speedied. Kww (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:MUSIC in every way. dont see why A7 doesnt apply here, it's pretty much what it's for. -- neon white talk 00:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 01:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable failing multiple criteria. Also I'm not sure why it isn't A7able as it doesn't assert their notability anywhere that I can see. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * General Comment Many of you need to reread A7. It reads
 * An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable.
 * A reasonable indication of why it might be notable is a pretty weak standard, and asserting that the band has toured with notable bands crosses it. Being a lower standard than notability is quite intentional, and Fails WP:MUSIC is never a reason for an A7. Kww (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose my problem is with what "touring with" means. Does it mean supported or opened for the other band or just that they played at some of the same places? In my opinion the first would be an assertion of notability but, the second isn't. If it's an ambiguous claim an attempt should be made by the includer of said information to provide a credible reference. The attempt itself should be what makes it a proper assertion, otherwise we can create any old rubbish we want as long as we put the right phrase in (which again in my opinion sort of defeats the purpose of the criteria... letter of the "law" vs. spirit of the "law" I suppose. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like it if A7 was looser. I used to do new pages patrol, and got a lot of nasty comments from admins for applying A7 the way you would like to, so now I'm pretty cautious. So far as I'm concerned, "has the word untitled in the title" should be a speedy criterion. Kww (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:58, 16 July 2008 (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.