Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buzzie
- 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 no consensus. Closing per WP:RELIST (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 09:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Buzzie[edit]
- Buzzie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet music notability or general notability guidelines. The sources given do not appear to be reliable sources. A search of google news archive brings up nothing. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how external resources, links to itunes, links to reviews from various sources are not seen as reliable sources. If the band has legitimate sources for their music. (CD purchase, iTunes/Zune/Rhapsody downloads, and has shown activity continuously for over 10 years, how does the fact that they are not "news" turn them from legitimate band to lacking notability? music notability Perhaps I am not understanding something here. I will read more, study more, and add more external reviews to establish a fact that Buzzie exists, has existed for 10 years, performed in 2009 at a festival in Orange County and *is* notable. Thanks. --jmacofearth | uber.la | wikisocial.org 00:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmacofearth (talk • contribs)
- Keep. Blue Cartoon and Cotton Mather are both notable, and this band has three members from those bands, therefore passing WP:BAND criterion 6. A merge to a section in the Cotton Mather article may be best if this can't be expanded.--Michig (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't see how having three members from notable bands meets criterion 6. There's nothing indicating that the musicians are independently notable--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the spirit of criterion 6 if perhaps not the wording. If we have a band whose members are/were significant members of other clearly notable bands, that's a strong indication of notability. The band should be covered somewhere, even if that's within one of the previous band articles.--Michig (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't see how having three members from notable bands meets criterion 6. There's nothing indicating that the musicians are independently notable--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Okay, well as far as judging the notability of individual members I was going by the paragraph after the criteria, "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article.". I suppose you may be defining notability as something different though. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Having members of an otherwise notable band is the only way they could possibly come up to snuff at this point; there're just plain no sources. Clearly no one cares about this article's condition, as it's been relisted thrice now without anyone !voting either way. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:23, 24 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.