Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noam (band)

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 and rename to Noam Kaniel. Invalid/unsupported deletion rationale and fair assertion that article was under construction. Great WP:HEY improvement while under discussion, as well. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noam (band)

Not a band (Noam Kaniel is a person) and not notable. Nhjm449 (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Article fails to show how this is notable. It is really not an article at all.--DerRichter (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small, no sign that it will eventually be sourced as notable. Lambton ^T/_C 04:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Move to Noam Kaniel. Noam isn't a band, but is Noam Kaniel, who has a substantial enough article on the French Wikipedia, which should be translated and added here, and has sufficient coverage. I've added the content from the French article - it's an automated translation, so needs some tidying up, but it's a start.--Michig (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to proper page. The translation is horrible but it talks about 20 million something being sold. Ridernyc (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep >_< Guys, It was UNDER CONSTRUCTION! You are not supposed to put on a deletion tag yet. -Karaku (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is useful for communication with other users: {{underconstruction}} . --DerRichter (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it was on the page.. then someone removed it, likely a vandal -Karaku (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- This shouldnt have been even listed for an AfD. READ. "do not tag with a deletion tag unless the article hasnt been edited in several days". Therefore, this discussion is pointless. -Karaku (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your poor understanding of the process and a simple line in a tag won't invalidate the discussion. Instead of trying to derail it, improve the article like Michig did. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DUDE. >_< I don't have all my time on Wikipedia- I have a forum, school, sleep, voulenteer work, so on, so forth.. I can't be on Wikipedia every second. That's why it had a construction tag. This discussion=pointless -Karaku (talk) 03:22, 9 February 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.