Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beep Beep (band)

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beep Beep (band)

Article for an band of questionable notability. See WP:BAND guidelines. Also not clear that article's sources meet requirements of WP:V. Was previously PROD, but disputed by experienced editor, so comes here for review and consensus. --Satori Son 03:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete - It seems they don't quite meet the WP:MUSIC standards. --Daniel Olsen 06:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - only one album on an independent so doesn't meet WP:MUSIC on that front but, as WP:MUSIC is hopelessly outdated and there are copious G-Hits for "Beep Beep"+"Saddle Creek" [1], I think it should be retained. Ac@osr 10:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• The look to be fairly popular; they're on an established label; article's sources are fine. I was kinda hoping the band would sound fantastic, too, but alas, 'twas not to be. Oh, well, three out of four ain't bad. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I mean they're on Saddle Creek. That's a big-time indie label. Sparsefarce 18:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:MUSIC is indeed outdated. And it's Saddle Creek. I think that almost by default, all bands in labels like that should have an article. Might be an indie, but indie as in independent, not as in basement with a cd-burner.

• Delete per nom. I see a lot of dissing of that annoying WP:MUSIC - I realize it's terribly inconvenient when you can't meet it's requirements and the article gets deleted, but that's what we have, folks - change it if you can, but it's the same playing field for everyone in the meantime. Speaking of which, I see no reason to invent new policy/guidelines when the old ones still hold. Band fails WP:MUSIC for lacking charted hits, national tours, multiple non-trivial articles by third parties. "Copious" Ghits described above are confused by a lot of sound effect notations ("beep beep"), download sites, blogs, and music sales, which is why you don't use Google as the sole arbiter for notability. Notability of their label is not to be confused with notability of the band - at best, this suggests the band should be merged with the article about the label. Tychocat 09:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It seems to be on the cusp of meeting WP:MUSIC, but not quite. —Michael Hays 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Intellectualprop2002 00:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet WP:BAND (Cnutvictim 18:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)).
• Keep: this may not meet WP:BAND, but it seems to meet WP:BIO which is more important: I found several articles on them, including from the Boston Phoenix: [2] [3] [4], et cetera. However, someone really needs to clean up this article, it doesn't say jack about its subject; it's barely even a stub. Mangojuice^talk 04:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, please keep in mind that the whole concept of notabilty is NOT a guideline or a policy, only an opinion that is shared by quite some Wikipedians. Especially in cases were there is doubt on whether or not something is "notable", it would be better to choose NOT to delete the article. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:54, 28 August 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.