Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afore notation

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 delete. Mailer Diablo 12:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afore notation

Tagged {db-band} but contested. Subject looks profoundly uinimportant, but let AfD have its say. Just zis Guy you know? 10:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BAND and WP:VANITY. No relevant results on allmusic and only 41 unique Google results [1]. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 10:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, seems to be very young local band besides own sites on myspace.com and purevolume.com Gu 12:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No claims to notability in article, WP:Music violation - albums, singles, chart places, tours, notable members.  (aeropagitica)  17:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: This is nowhere near WP:BAND. --Hetar 17:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BAND. I originally tagged this article for speedy, but its creator, Captain Internet twice removed the tag, appending the last time a comment to the effect that he would improve the article so as to demonstrate the subject's notability. I construed this as a "hangon" request and consequently tagged the article for "hangon" (I moved his message to the talk page, where also I explain my reasoning for applying the "hangon" tag on an article that I tagged for speedy); nevertheless, as the searches above demonstrate clearly, there is no notability to be demonstrated, whatever Captain Internet might add to the contrary. Thus, I think that JzG was altogether correct to bring this to AfD and that, even as typically it might be indecorous of us to support deletion of a page that has been tagged "hangon" (or has been edited in such a way as to reflect "hangon" sentiments, notwithstanding the failure properly to tag the article), here the subject is empirically shown to be non-notable and we needn't to wait for edits to the article. Joe 18:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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.