Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Cake for Every Creature

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. MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free Cake for Every Creature

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

Potentially non-notable band. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pretty decent coverage in Google News. Enough to meet WP:GNG, I should say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rather than delete the article, which has decent coverage as Shawn said, we should work to expand the article and better integrate it into Wikipedia. Andise1 (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you say too soon? Why not explain what needs to be done to fix the article rather than go straight to deleting it. I am more than happy to spend the time working on updating the article in any way possible. Andise1 (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, TOOSOON guidelines state "Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles, require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources." Do you see the numerous sources in the article? Do you see what those sources are about? I advise you to rethink your vote here. Andise1 (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources exist within the article to confirm that the GNG is met. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree most sources are frivolous, but a few, such as NPR and Rolling Stone, carry enough merit to cancel those out. To meet coverage criteria in those entities indicate the subject is worthwhile, but the article itself can be improved by pruning the "coverage for coverage sake" type references and replacing them with better sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient external sources. I think it passes the test. South Nashua (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone please show the references which can be used for passing GNG. If I take out the unreliable/SPS ones, I don't find anything with significant coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean there are plenty of sources in the article, more than in some other articles on Wikipedia. I know, that may not seem like something worth saying, but my point is that everything in the article is sourced, and most of it is from publications with articles on Wikipedia. I just fail to see what the purpose would be to delete the article when it can be expanded/worked on to be better included within Wikipedia. Andise1 (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article as of now is WP:REFBOMBed with a bunch of unreliable or questionably reliable sources which do not help towards notability. In the Afd we look for reliable sources. What I am asking for is to show me a few reliable sources about the band. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2017 (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.