Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Friday Night Boys
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Friday Night Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Appears to fail WP:BAND. Has one legitimate article, but needs more to be notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Not enough major label releases, no charting history, no apparent notable widespread media coverage. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- See comment below.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – I've added a few sources that help to establish notability per WP:BAND criterion #1. And given that their album release, on Fueled by Ramen, is just days away, I'd be willing to give the article the benefit of the doubt if it's of borderline notability. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Is this a joke? All Fueled by Ramen artists have their own entry. They've also signed a deal with Interscope to be effective later this year.--Baselineace (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other stuff exists is not a valid argument. I would be willing to accept that they do seem to (just about) pass criteria 1, and as suggested, with the new album soon to be released, would consider keeping the article for the time being, as more coverage is likely following the release. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep That's what I think is best. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:39, 13 June 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.