Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamfatter

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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamfatter

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

As discussions on the page's talk page bear out, this is a pretty unknown band: most of the claims on the page are uncited. They're an ephemeral phenomenon and any major information about them could easily be incorporated into the Dragons' Den page ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Their singles made the charts, which is the only reason why I think this should be kept. I'm just not sure if #54 for the single "Sziget (We Get Wrecked)" is poor enough for the band to reflect the whole notability aspect. Minima c (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, January ^(talk) 19:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relisted because AFD nomination process was not fully completed (see this thread). January ^(talk) 19:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I really messed up this NfD, didn't I? Thanks for sorting it out on my behalf, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I will have to agree with Minimac above. Some unverified claims in the article can be removed, and publicity-style infomration should definitely go. But the band did achieve a small amount of notability, so if someone wanted to take the time to create an article, so be it. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:56, 26 November 2010 (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.