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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Punters[edit]

The Punters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

nominator (which is not me, see history) didn't specify reason. I personally think we should keep this article. Debresser (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see any evidence that they meet the WP:BAND criteria for inclusion. Their record labels are redlinks, and the article references no third-party sources. Powers ^T 14:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete If anyone finds sources that prove even half of the things this article claims, this band would be notable. However, it still fails WP:BAND as well as the General Notability Guidelines. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete They don't appear to be notable, I can't find anything about them through the first several pages of googlesearching (apart from this page). --GedUK  14:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It does look a tad like a fake, doesn't it. :) Debresser (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The band is entirely real, if the nominator were questioning that he would have nominated it for Speedy Deletion. However, the band meets neither the General Notability guidelines, nor the Notability criteria for bands. In order to be included in Wikipedia, a subject must be both Verifiable and Notable. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 15:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me that In this case you can't prove anything from the fact that the nominator didn't put it up for speedy deletion. Do you know it is real? Debresser (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Bamboozled again! I was under the impression that you were under the impression that the reason the other contributers chose Delete was verifiability. In any case, with the right search terms [1], Google returns a few results. Then again, it could be an elaborate hoax. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was and am. The question is whether they did their research. You did, so now at least I believe the article is not a fake. Perhaps keep it as a stub Debresser (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Still fails notability criteria, though. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 15:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, i couldn't find anything about them. I never said they were a hoax. But just because the band exists doesn't mean they're notable enough to have their own article. --GedUK  15:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 02:35, 28 February 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.