Wiki How:Articles for deletion/The Moonies

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 of the debate was keep. moink 01:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable per WP:BAND. Was originally tagged as a {{db-band}}, but I removed the tag as it did not seem to meet A7. Was prodded by me and then deprodded by an anon. AmiDaniel (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article. It is still in progress. Tom Breen

Delete. Probable vanity or fancruft. No indication of the band being notable despite substantial detail of the band's career. mgekelly 12:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article. It is still in progress. I have made considerable improvements to the original article. Tom Breen

• Comment - Just as a friendly point, the article hasn't been nominated for deletion because of its quality, but because the nominator feels the band aren't notable enough for WP, so improving it probably won't hold much sway. I have, however, outlined below why I feel the band meet WP's notability requirements (it's for others to agree or disagree, now!) Seb Patrick 13:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. They may not have charted, but the article references (though does not link to) reviews in both NME and The Independent, in addition to a link to a review on BBC Manchester online, which I believe meets :

Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...). (WP:MUSIC)

In addition, they have been on :

a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country

...as a Google search (22,800 hits for "the moonies" band, by the way) will attest. I personally saw them play once at Oxford's Zodiac (a notable venue a significant distance from their home city) supporting the well-known band Easyworld. In addition, the article has been edited by a number of users over a long period of time, so I don't think it's vanity, either. Seb Patrick 12:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 15:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No offence (this is a debate, after all), but seeing as I've pointed out two ways in which they meet the criteria listed in WP:MUSIC (and that document suggests that only one criterion should need to be filled in order to meet notability requirements), could you explain why you feel they don't? Seb Patrick 15:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant keep per Seb Patrick. mgekelly 16:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, reluctantly, as per Seb. Those press clippings need to be integrated with the article rather than hanging on the end like an album cover, though. Ziggurat 21:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Seb Patrick. Sure, I haven't heard of them, and probably never will again, but they easily pass WP:MUSIC. -- Kicking222 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup - media coverage and national tours cover WP:MUSIC, but this reads more like a tribute page than a encyclopedia article. B.Wind 06:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please this meets the music page Yuckfoo 06:35, 8 June 2006 (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.