Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UK Subs: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 11:37, 11 February 2023

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 02:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UK Subs

Band vanity. Paul Klenk 07:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band is certainly notable. See [1] for their extensive discography, beginning in 1977. Cnwb 07:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yikes, careful with the "band vanity" tag! --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 07:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Didn't even have to look this one up. Flowerparty ^talk 08:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was previously a very large article that got speedied for copyvio. The recent creation and shortness of the article make the band vanity assumption somewhat understandable, but let's do a little research first next time, m'kay? Thatdog 08:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ye ghods! Speedy keep. "Band vanity? What the Ð?" I checked two handy encyclopedias of rock music, both of which gave the UK Subs approximately the same amount of text column space as Nine Inch Nails or the Red Hot Chili Peppers. So I suppose those are the next two articles to go... Grutness...wha? 08:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel all nostalgic seeing this listed here, definitely notable as part of the UK 70's punk era. 845,000 hits on Google UK --Meiers Twins 09:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I didn't need to look at the article, (but I did, just to make sure), way notable to us dinosaurs in this neck of the woods. Alf 12:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable UK punk band from the 1970s. Capitalistroadster 13:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of UK punk rock history. --Cactus.man 15:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as bad-faith nomination. Band vanity? Punkmorten 19:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please assume good faith - but certainly keep --Doc (?) 21:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatic keep. I've seen it all now. jamesgibbon 20:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Obviously concensus has formed on this VfD. I just wanted to point out that the article does read like NN BV for someone not familiar with the group. Suggest all who are familiar with them expand the article. -PlainSight 20:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a start on it, but someone who knows more about the band should have a go at extending it further. Grutness...wha? 02:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are a notable punk band.DavidFarmbrough13:14, 01 September 2005 (BST)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 *'''Keep'''. The band is certainly notable. See [http://www.newredarchives.com/bands/uksubs/discography/] for their extensive discography, beginning in 1977. [[User:Cnwb|Cnwb]] 07:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''.  Yikes, careful with the "band vanity" tag! --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 07:55, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
-*'''Keep'''. Didn't even have to look this one up. [[User:Flowerparty|<font color=ccdddd>Flowerparty</font>]] [[User talk:Flowerparty|<sup>talk</sup>]] 08:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
+*'''Keep'''. Didn't even have to look this one up. [[User:Flowerparty|<span style="color:#ccdddd;">Flowerparty</span>]] [[User talk:Flowerparty|<sup>talk</sup>]] 08:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''.  This was previously a very large article that got speedied for copyvio.  The recent creation and shortness of the article make the band vanity assumption somewhat understandable, but let's do a little research first next time, m'kay?  [[User:Thatdog|Thatdog]] 08:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 *'''Ye ghods! Speedy keep'''. "Band vanity? What the &ETH;?" I checked two handy encyclopedias of rock music, both of which gave the UK Subs approximately the same amount of text column space as Nine Inch Nails or the Red Hot Chili Peppers. So I suppose those are the next two articles to go... [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|<span style="color:green;">wha?</span>]]''</small> 08:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 *'''Strong keep''' as bad-faith nomination. ''Band vanity''? [[User:Punkmorten|Punkmorten]] 19:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 :please [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|assume good faith]] - but certainly '''keep''' --[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|(?)]] 21:56, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
-*'''Emphatic keep'''. I've seen it all now. [[User:Jamesgibbon|<font style="color:green">james</font><font style="color: blue">gibbon</font>]] 20:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
+*'''Emphatic keep'''. I've seen it all now. [[User:Jamesgibbon|<span style="color:green">james</span><span style="color: blue">gibbon</span>]] 20:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 *'''Comment''' - Obviously concensus has formed on this VfD.  I just wanted to point out that the article does read like NN BV for someone not familiar with the group.  Suggest all who are familiar with them expand the article. -[[User:Awyllie|PlainSight]] 20:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 **I've made a start on it, but someone who knows more about the band should have a go at extending it further. [[User:Grutness|Grutness]]...<small>''[[User_talk:Grutness|<span style="color:green;">wha?</span>]]''</small> 02:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)