Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skank attack

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 per consensus and per questionable copyright issues. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Skank attack

Skank attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:ARTIST. Article reads like an essay and is written by a website owner who states that they wish to support, "Christchurch, New Zealand and the art and culture contained within this wonderful city" which in my opinion constitutes a WP:COI. I believe that it qualifies for WP:G11 and WP:A7. Admin Graeme Bartlett decline WP:G12 stating that, "speedy dfelete declined, as writer also claims to own web site." I can find no significant coverage from reliable sources in a Google News search or Google News Archive search (although I did find a funny article about Jersey Shore). Haven't been signed to a notable label, gone on a major tour, or charted any songs. OlYeller^Talktome 14:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't the last sentence of the nom have a 'not' in it? Peridon (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Good call. Made the change. OlYeller^Talktome 01:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete on the grounds of copyvio - the text at thebigcity appears to be older. Also delete on the grounds of notability or rather lack of, per nom. Peridon (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, self-promotional. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - We are making a start. I think all the criticism are valid. So will be improved over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craignewc (talk • contribs) 11:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Craig. There are several issues with the article and you guys do appear to be addressing several of them. The real purpose of this AfD is to determine if the subject is notable or not. Notability is determined by a large list of inclusion guidelines found here. The ones that would most likely apply to this group are WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:ARTIST. As of right now, no amount of improvement of the article's text will change that. From my research, it doesn't appear that notability can be established and baring unforeseen circumstances most likely won't ever be notable. The easiest way to change that is to produce some news articles from reliable sources that shows significant coverage of the group. Other than that, there's several ways in those links I provided that the group can prove notability but as of right now, I'm not able to find any evidence of notability. OlYeller^Talktome 14:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete A search does not indicate 3rd party mentions.Curb Chain (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2011 (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.