Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absent Elk
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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Absent Elk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested prod. No vote. Ryan Delaney talk 00:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:BAND. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, simply searching Absent Elk (even without quotation marks) on Google brings up websites from the Sun, the Guardian and the Sony BMG website containing articles about the band, which meets the first criteria of WP:BAND. Keytar Shredder (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the above editor is the original creator of the article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't have created the article if I felt it failed the criteria for a band article. Keytar Shredder (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhm, that he's the article creator doesn't make what he said false.... --Ryan Delaney talk 18:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did I say that it did? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhm, that he's the article creator doesn't make what he said false.... --Ryan Delaney talk 18:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the above editor is the original creator of the article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 10:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of coverage found ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). Easily passes both WP:GNG and WP:BAND.--Michig (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Might be notable in the future, But I don't see it yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – There are multiple articles about the band in the UK media as demonstrated above by Michig. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:13, 12 June 2009 (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.