Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mysto & Pizzi (2nd nomination)

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. Tone 15:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mysto & Pizzi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for failing the notability guideline since September 2009 and has not improved much since. URBAN-ANDY (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 (tagged), and nom. WuhWuzDat 20:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the speedy tag after reviewing the old version. This version of the article is improved over the earlier one, although serious issues do remain. —C.Fred (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While a do see a source providing some depth of coverage of them,[1] I don't see enough to clear the hurdles of WP:GNG, nor do I see enough in their credits that they meet WP:BAND or similar specific notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, the coverage is minimal for these two, and I don't think they're on the high side of WP:BAND at this point. I may be wrong, and would be happy to reconsider with further information. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Nominator has been blocked as a sock; no opinion on Mysto & Pizzi, which I've not even looked at. Jack Merridew 23:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: User is a banned sock of Pickbothmanlol. AfroUnderscoreStud (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)— AfroUnderscoreStud (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Obvious blocked sock is obvious.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 01:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As other editors, including myself, favor deletion of the article, a speedy keep is not appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the nominator is banned for socking. AfroUnderscoreStud (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that invalidate the debate? Eeekster (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The nominator's identification as a sockpuppet of a banned user doesn't mean the page shouldn't be deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And since AfD discussions are about the reasoning to delete/keep the article more than simple headcount, I trust the closing admin can discount what happened to the account of the nominator while still taking into account those editors who do, in good faith, agree with the nomination and think it should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very clearly non-notable musical group.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the many reason already cited. Eeekster (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see how the sources or their accomplishments meet the notability guidelines. -- Transity^{(talk • contribs)} 15:23, 22 December 2009 (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.