Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic Porno

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. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic Porno

Sonic Porno (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Reposted nn-band but author has had a little rant so I thought I would grant them an AfD. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete "I assume you marked it as spam because it contains the word 'Porno'". Boy oh boy, we all know what happens when you assume. Anyway, it doesn't matter how many gigs they've got in Brisbane, how large their fanbase is, or how many fansites have reviewed them, they don't meet WP:MUSIC. No sources to back it up either. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 21:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. I marked it as spam because of its tone. Is a phrase such as "foaming-at-the-mouth rejection of glitzy pomposity" encyclopedic? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete Firstly, this article is a mess and isn't an encyclopaedia article anyway. Secondly, they are not notable. They may be considered by the author as being "up-and-coming" but they are not notable yet, and may never be. Mr pand 22:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Euryalus 23:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. Even if made less spammy, the group still fails WP:MUSIC and the words "up-and-coming" in a music article seems to me to be code for "not notable". -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete (Pick one of the reason thay said above for me) That's why! Yourname 00:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, oh please, an obvious WP:MUSIC fail. ~ Sebi 07:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Twenty Years 11:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. No objection of the band becomes notable, but the article as-is is not salvageable. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete shameless promotion Arthur 20:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete even after a bit of a tidy up... there is still nothing notable to say. It wasn't hidden by fandom, it just wasn't even there to start with. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N and WP:ORG, any of which would have gotten this band over the line. (I think you can pass WP:N without passing WP:BAND, can't you?)Garrie 02:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

  WP:BAND or WP:MUSIC (same thing) are parts of the main notability guidelines (WP:N), just in greater detail, and are a bit more specific on when something music-related is notable and when it isn't. So BAND & MUSIC = N. Same with the other types of notability guidelines (e.g. WP:ORG, WP:WEB, WP:BIO, WP:PROF, et al); in theory, they are all notability guidelines, just a bit more specific on the topic, so notability is easier to determine. ~ Sebi 04:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:SPAM + WP:BAND + WP:SNOW = bye then. tomasz. 16:18, 8 November 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.