Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gröûp X (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Gröûp X
AfDs for this article:
Prodded by Dchall1 on the grounds that it fails WP:MUSIC. Since this has survived an AfD before, I think it should go through it again rather than simply get prodded away. My opinion is pretty much the same as it was in the previous AfD (keep). - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per my vote on the last AfD (as Danny Lilithborne). JuJube (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I probably wouldn't have prodded it had I noticed the previous AFD. That said, I see no reliable sources, and the article has been tagged as lacking them for almost a year now. A quick Google search doesn't turn up any, and most of the results are generic hits. I have to go with Delete. Dchall1 (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment An article that survived an AfD can't be deleted via prod - TheBillyTalk 10:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. They should be judged on WP:WEB rather than WP:MUSIC, because they're an internet phenomenon more than they are a live band. Per note 1 "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. Content which has been packaged into material form, such as onto CD, DVD or book form, but which is still primarily only available for sale via the Internet, still falls under these guidelines." As far as I understand, they only sell their CDs on their site and through online retailers (IIRC they used to sell on the old MP3.com before it committed temporary net-suicide and re-launched). For references to their notability, the external links section shows one review by "Associated Content", A site with alexa rank 2,400, and which has a wikipedia article that survived AfD, so that seems to be a non-trivial mention. They need at least one more for "multiple secondary sources", but one good mention suggests they aren't totally unknown and that further evidence of notability can be found, so I think it's premature to just trash the article - TheBillyTalk 11:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 01:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: I think those in this discussion should read the discussion for the previous nomination last year. I can't see any new points being raised here, so I can't see why a different conclusion should be reached. Bondegezou (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: A few of their videos/songs have started a sort of internet meme. There are articles on them to be found, too. Grazfather (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - they're not obviously notable, but there do seem to be enough sources here to justify a keep. By the way, I'd point out to Dchall1 that articles that have previously been through an AFD process (whether successful or not) are not candidates for being WP:PRODded. Terraxos (talk) 03:45, 15 January 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.
