Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monsters Are Waiting

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 The references cited here by Bardin have swayed this to a keep consensus. However, references in an AFD discussion do not a better article make. They need to be integrated appropriately into the body of the article, as well as listed as references at the bottom. Marking the page as needing this cleanup. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monsters Are Waiting

Monsters Are Waiting (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This group does not seem notable. Article contains four links to external sites: 1) their official website, 2) their myspace page, 3) a link to answers.com, 4) an empty profile on SPIN.com that does not contain any information about the band itself. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 22:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, utter failure of WP:MUSIC, when a band's only "reference" is Myspace, that's a red flag right there. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep If an article does not indicate notability, tag it with {{notability}}. A poorly written article that only uses a myspace page as a reference should be tagged with {{unreferenced}} or something similar. Neither are acceptable reasons for deletion. A very quick google search indicates that this subject is notable enough for an article on wikipedia per criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC. They have been the subject of multiple non-trivial mention in independent and reliable publications including this, this, this and this. All that on just a quick google search. If you're not willing to spent just a single minute looking up a subject on google, then I really feel that you should not be nominating an article for deletion or voting delete. --Bardin (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per the sources found by Bardin which appear to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Davewild (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Esradekan. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Although the sources found by Bardin during this discussion are not overwhelming, they appear to meet the reliable sources requirements to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. This would have been a no brainer delete otherwise, so the nom is not unreasonable. The editors wanting to keep or add content have the burden to establish notability and find RS. However, I run a quick google search before voting based on notability and references in AfDs. The references do need to be added to the article. — Becksguy (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - although I see no reason to assume that this nom was in bad faith. Indeed, it seems a reasonable nom, although it appears headed toward keep - the responsibility to assert notability and provide refs lies with those who insert information into an article. Pastordavid (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, because this article does indicate notability per the notability guidelines. Razorflame 15:17, 22 April 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.