Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bat Mastersons

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 KEEP. Hu12 05:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bat Mastersons

Bat Mastersons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article on yet another band, created by a single-purpose account, who looks like he had no interest in providing any external sources whatsoever, and no verifiability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

:-)[citation needed] AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Moonriddengirl 13:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - No evidence that any notable efforts have been made to test notability or verifiability, hence not a proper AfD as per WP:DP. Any article can be littered with [citation needed] notices, whether it's well-sourced or not. I added a quick link to the article. — xDanielxTalk 00:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as they appear to be notable. They hvae hundreds of Ghits [1] and I have added a bunch of external links, a See Also, and a reflist. Seems to be big in the Dallas area. Bearian 18:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per xDanielx. Mathmo Talk 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Carlossuarez46 19:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per added references.[citation needed] Still has a ton of citations needed.[citation needed] Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[citation needed]
  • Problem: all of the references in the article right now are related to the band itself in some way or are promotional in nature (gig lists, etc). Bigger problem: this article is mostly a copy-and-paste of this piece on Pegasus News (which I'm not sure has any substantial editorial policy). Delete this copyvio and allow recreation of an article that a) actually has sources, and b) isn't a copy-and-paste. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, but for a different rationale than I held previously. Bearian seems to have addressed notability concerns, but the copyvio per Tony Fox is a bigger concern. Is there an option to Delete without prejudice? --Moonriddengirl 14:22, 13 August 2007 (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.