Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kid Harpoon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Skomorokh (talk | contribs) at 00:26, 28 April 2008 (closing as keep (non-admin closure)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
- 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 per near unanimity among respondents (non-admin closure). The sole delete preference was "per Ford MF", where Ford MF recommended to keep. Subject meets notability guidelines per non-trivial coverage in reputable independent music publications, as demonstrated by Corvus Cornix. Skomorokh 00:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kid Harpoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:BAND Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Seems like a good article, but needs reliable references. Dwilso 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If they WERE on XL Recordings, which is a pretty major company (they'd be labelmates with Radiohead) , I'd say they were notable, but the band's discography in the article itself doesn't indicate any XL releases, and there's no mention of them on XL's website either. Searching "Kid Harpoon" comes up with nada, and a quick search didn't come up with any notable coverage either.Changing to keep, on grounds of usefulness. Ford MF (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per Ford MF. --JulesN Talk 20:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep But it does need refs. P.B. Pilhet 21:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, this seems to imply notability. And maybe these: [1], [2], [3]. Corvus cornixtalk 23:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above. I found my way here looking for information on the band, so it was useful to me, at least. --Grace (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Huh. Well, that's good enough for me. Ford MF (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.