Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph's World

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph's World[edit]

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

Delete Non notable band. No sources to prove notability. Absolutley no reason for this band to have an article OttomanJackson 01:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If deleted, Ralph's World Rocks which redirects there will need to be deleted, as well. OttomanJackson 01:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep as per WP:BANDs 8th criterium: "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.". Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage to establish notability. Pyrrhus16 19:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know some people are offended when it's suggested that they should have followed WP:BEFORE and looked for sources themselves, but the first page from the Google News archive includes articles from Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Daily News, New York Post, The Plain Dealer, Los Angeles Times, NPR.--Michig (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator said "no sources to prove notability" which is true if you only read the article as it stands now. It turns out there is a reason for the act to have an article given the coverage found by Michig. (Yes, some of the mentions are fleeting and probably not significant, but others pass the test.) The article needs expansion. not deletion, and WP:BEFORE was not nearly followed here. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:33, 12 July 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.