Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Those Aren't Muskets!

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. v/r - T P 17:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those Aren't Muskets!

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

Non-notable comedy group, doesn't pass WP:ORG - BigPimpinBrah (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- They are notable. Does pass WP:ORG. Notable links have been provided, and are continually provided. Comedy group consists of notable comedy writers as well as guest-actors who are from noted television programs. annacatt (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  - Comment The article has one reliable source at most (I do not know anything about tubefilter so I can't judge whether it is reliable). The group has not received significant press coverage to justify an article. Edit: as more sources have been added. My WP:ORG referral still stands, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability" - BigPimpinBrah (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment I respectfully disagree. There are more and more sources being added. They have created films as well as web-series. There are plenty of articles that mark their notability, as well as the fact that many notable actors and comedy writers belong to this group. annacatt (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, found one article behind a pay wall where the subject of the article is the primary subject of a non-primary reliable source, and in that source contains significant coverage of the subject of this AfD. However, one article I don't think is enough, as usually multiple reliable sources are required to indicate notability. Therefore, per WP:GNG I have to lean towards deletion. If others can find other reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, I maybe persuaded to change my mind.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I was able to read the article you found, RCLC, and it is indeed a full-length article about this troupe, amounting to significant coverage from an independent reliable source. I used it to add information to the article. Unfortunately I couldn't find any other significant independent coverage, and one such reference is not enough. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps the article could be wikified to the author, for expansion if their notability grows. --MelanieN (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - generally for music groups, if there is two or more notable members it would be sufficient. In this case, there are two members notable and with existing WP articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggerjay (talk • contribs) 20:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That maybe the case however, may I refer Tiggerjay to WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because some members of the organization/group are notable does not make the group itself notable, this works vice versa; otherwise it could be argued that all service members of the Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are notable because the organization is notable.

Perhaps the article should be userfied until more non-primary significant coverage is created about the subject by reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2013 (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.