Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easily Embarrassed
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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Easily Embarrassed[edit]
- Easily Embarrassed (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)
As far as I can see, they're a pretty unnotable band. Was deleted by prod previously and restored so bringing here for discussion. Perfectly willing to withdraw nom if some good Dutch sources can be provided, bu I'm finding none. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if this gets deleted, their album, Idyllic Life should be too. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2010 (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) 00:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Improve the article - reliable sources must be added. But keep the article - if the band exists people may wish to research it. IainUK talk 00:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As an equal stakeholder in this project, if my views have "no merit", then nor do yours fellow wikipedian. You may wish to strike that remark. The article wouldn't be at AfD if there was no question. IainUK talk 23:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, the difference is that mine is based in widely accepted editing guidelines, while yours is based on...god knows what. "if the band exists people may wish to research it" completely ignores the general notability guidelines. If you can offer a good reason why that guideline should be set aside for this band, I'm all ears, bro. Tarc (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've said enough - if I make further comments, I suspect this will continue, and I don't want to go down the route of battling policy interpretation. I have made no suggestion that WP:GNG be set aside, nor have I ignored it. And just some friendly advice, when you reply to a comment with Er,.., it can come across a little patronising - and I'm sure you don't want that. Cheers IainUK talk 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, the difference is that mine is based in widely accepted editing guidelines, while yours is based on...god knows what. "if the band exists people may wish to research it" completely ignores the general notability guidelines. If you can offer a good reason why that guideline should be set aside for this band, I'm all ears, bro. Tarc (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As an equal stakeholder in this project, if my views have "no merit", then nor do yours fellow wikipedian. You may wish to strike that remark. The article wouldn't be at AfD if there was no question. IainUK talk 23:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails general notability, fails WP:BAND. There's really no wiggle room here for a band with no coverage by reliable sources and EP/album releases on minor indie labels. Tarc (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no notability here. Lacks coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:30, 18 August 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.