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. Notability is easily established. Kafziel ^Talk 14:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Brothers[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Jonas
Moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Jonas

Unreferenced article on a band composed of 3 brothers (Kevin Nick and Joe, whose articles have been or are in the process of deletion. Appearances and rankings which might support a keep are completely unsourced. They were signed and were dropped by Columbia after 1 album (also nominated), and would venture they may not pass WP:MUSIC either. Ohconfucius 06:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I've cleaned up tons of vandalism on the related pages and nominated one of the brothers for AfD, after nominating both for prod. They aren't very notable, it isn't cited, and the only external links are myspace and the official webiste. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking sources make it necessary to delete articles about living people Alf photoman 21:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per general un-notability, lack of sources. Dan, the CowMan 05:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete just put a stub on it and have the citations needed tabs on the page and/or lock that page. Rollinman 15:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This band is currently on the Billboard Hot 100 charts, so I don't see why it should be deleted. You make not like them (I don't care for them much myself) but they are notable with some of the chart success they've had so far. ItalianGreyhound 16:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's great, but the article doesn't currently say that at all, just that they charted on Radio Disney. Also, the "Singles" currently lead to a disambiguation page and a song that they covered. Dan, the CowMan 02:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, clearly meets WP:MUSIC (Top 40 hit in US). Teemu08 18:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This does not meet any speedy keep criteria. GassyGuy 20:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Another Disney band selling well in the prepubescent crowd who nobody will remember in five years (months?) but they meet the notability guidelines. Give it all sorts of cleanup tags, though. GassyGuy 20:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources can be found. Acalamari 22:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite how bad the group is, they do warrant an article. BlueLotas 02:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if I'm not exactly fond of their music, even I've heard of them, and that's saying something for a pop band. On Yahoo! Music Videos (see LAUNCHcast), their video "Year 3000" is ranked number 64 at this time. That qualifies WP:MUSIC number 1, and if I'm not mistaken, didn't they record the theme to Disney Channel's American Dragon? (That's what the American Dragon page says at least...) That would qualify them for WP:MUSIC number 9. I just went to Billboard.com and saw them on the main page. According to the Billboard Artist Index, [1], they are #58 on the Hot 100, #31 on the Hot Digital Tracks chart, and #45 on the Pop 100. I would say that's pretty notable. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 05:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their music is often, and all bands/artists deserve a page anyway

17:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)--Don't look here 17:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This band is still considered up and coming, thier music videos often play on the disney channel, and just because an article lacks sources does not mean it should be deleted. This article should have been tagged in the first place as needing sources. That should be done instead,Michael Cook 02:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Who deleted the talk page? That is not considered kosher.

Dan, the CowMan 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KeepThis band is still very new and people are just now starting to hear about them. This information is still relevent and resoursful, more information will be coming soon.Rinalisa94 01:01, 8 March 2007 (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.