Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Midnight Beast

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. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Midnight Beast

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

Non-notable per WP:BAND and WP:WEB, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous IP editor. MuffledThud (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the subject is the same single by which the band claims notability, and for which ~~neither the references given nor a web search for evidence supports~~ there is no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources (sentence updated at 09:28, 30 Jan. 2010 by MuffledThud):

Both are notable:
- meets WP:BAND criterion #2 at [1].
- meets WP:WEB criterion #1 at [2], [3] and [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adabow (talk • contribs)
Weak keep both - Tik Tok was a hit single (#39 in Ireland), which also makes the band notable. Possibly. There's some coverage in Google News, but not a lot. --Michig (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both The band has charted. Their parody has charted.—Iknow23 (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both In addition to charting in Ireland, the song is on Australias digital downloads chart. It's also being played on Australian commercial radio stations, meeting criteria 11 of WP:BAND. Themania (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Should be moved to at most a mention in the article for the song being parodied. These guy's aren't the next Lonely Island or Weird Al, and while some bands who have produced parodies have been signed to major labels, band and song articles should be withheld until when and if such action occurs. JEMdev (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Per Michig.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band are notable due to the criteria listed above by Adabow. The comments made by JEMdev are POV, don't cite any of wikipedia's rules on deletion and shouldn't be taken into consideration. Technohead1980 (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2010 (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.