Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Glands

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The result of the debate was speedy keep, nom withdrawn. --Coredesat talk 03:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Glands[edit]

~~Non notable -~~ ~~article even says so!~~, ~~non NPOV~~ Fiddle Faddle 21:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn by Nominator Fiddle Faddle 23:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment POV has been addressed. Article remains poor, but is improved. Fiddle Faddle 22:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tweaked it a little, too. Would you agree now that the band IS notable? Parsssseltongue 22:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just show us WP:MUSIC clearly and the job is done for me. Fiddle Faddle 23:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, it IS! Answere my own question. Job done. Dude, edit the article Fiddle Faddle 23:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If the quoted "Bar None Records" is Bar/None Records I think that does it and I will withdraw gracefuly and with pleasure. Fiddle Faddle 23:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep. Wow, you gave the originator article all of eight minutes before you sent this for deletion. Yes, it needs cleanup, but that's all. They have done national tours, they are on notable record labels, and have recieved reviews in Rolling Stone. I would ask you to reconsider your nomination, withdraw it, and mark this for cleanup instead. And wait more then 8 minutes next time, maybe actually do a Google search before you assume bad faith. Parsssseltongue 21:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I looked at the article charitably at first. Then I re-read it. It said then "Ultimately the band is relitively unknown, but its hard not to wonder when there music is going to fall into the right hands and before you know it will be heard on every radio station and seen and heard on every music TV show. These guys offer catchy tunes but at the heart of it all the songs are a bunch of random string of words, but they do it so well that it works for them." That was sufficient to say "non notable". The article screamed it at me. I do see that this is changing (this para has been removed, and POV is becoming neutral) and I will revisit the page in a couple of days. I don't "nominate and run. I have a strong preference for AfD being solved by a much enhanced article. In so many ways that is what it is for. Fiddle Faddle 22:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reverted the POV and impossible to verify and cleanup statements. Feel free to revert if you please. Yank sox 22:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article much improved. If someone can show clearly how it meets WP:MUSIC I'll happily withdraw my nom (but I'm not around now until Friday). For me this means AfD is working correctly for this article. Fast and good enhancement. Only the WP:MUSIC hurdle to leap. Fiddle Faddle 23:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Parsssseltongue 23:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Weak Keep Appears to meet WP:MUSIC with the inclusion of the CNN article and a Phoenix New Times article[1]. Aside from the Rolling Stones review, there is also a review from NPR [2]. Yank sox 23:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, speedy keep Parsssseltongue 23:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Nomination withdrawn Nuff said? Fiddle Faddle 23:23, 28 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.