Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 10

Guide to deletion

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Brasstronaut

Brasstronaut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band. Speedy tag was removed with "(decline speedy - may be notable (check Google News))", so I did check Google News, and got only three articles, none of them proof of notability. In addition, all three of the hits are to www.pressdisplay.com, which is a compendium of back articles from a variety of newspapers, but every one of them is apparently removed from pressdisplay's database, so even if you wanted to pay to read them, they're no longer available. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Google brings up 7 hits, none of them citable sources. ~Cr∞nium 04:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Firestorm ^Talk 07:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: The decline was because of the 20 Google News hits I got, there was for example this article about the band in Vue Weekly, a reliable source. One might want to consider that source. Also, mentioned on Canada.com. SoWhy 11:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The two sources above, plus this, this and this just about cut it. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 14:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1, not only for the sources supplied by SoWhy & Sparklism, but also for these ones too, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 10:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 00:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to meet the notability criteria with all the sources listed above. Hippopotamus (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2009 (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.

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Graham Ferreira

Graham Ferreira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete doesn't seem to be much by way of reliable sources looking through google for this guy. It's been an unreferenced BLP for over 2 years, and he's sufficiently nn that we don't know when or where he was born or whether he's really still alive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I can only find refs back to wp  Chzz  ►  16:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: broke at least one important story in Botha's time. Apartheid's environmental toll. Ottre 03:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, the comment on the article's talk page suggests the subject may be notable, but without references both this assertion and the content of the article cannot be verified. —Snigbrook 14:13, 11 March 2009 (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.