Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zac n' adam

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. + requested by both primary contributors slakr^\ talk / 09:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zac n' adam

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

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

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

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

Non-notable band. Two singles, that apparently may or may not have done well on the Beat100 chart, but not on any of the recognized music charts of the UK.. No indications of any significant coverage anywhere. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added articles about the band's recordings. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considerations

Quote: Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape.

Quote: The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere.

Quote:' determing notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity.

They are an unsigned band who have not long been around, they are obviously not going to be in the top UK charts. By the looks of it, The information was all taken from their website.

So it is not as though the sources are not accurate. Also whether they only have two singles is irrelevant because in the future they will have more. They did say they are working on an album.

The person who created it was possibly a fan and they are on 6 pages of google — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinCross84 (talk • contribs) — ColinCross84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment As noted, "...Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere". Wikipedia has clear guidelines on what should be included, and for bands, those guidelines are found at WP:BAND. Also, as in all cases, WP:GNG applies. This band meets none of the criteria at either location. Their article is sources solely to their own Facebook page, or to pages they have created on soundcloud and similar promotional vehicles. As to the "accuracy" of the information, we have no way of knowing: when promoting oneself or one's own band, accuracy is not the aim, so we can't really trust the band's own promotional material to be accurate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove all of the pages linked to this artist because I didn't read the terms and I apologise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliotM26 (talk • contribs)
- Comment As ElliotM26 is the main author, but not the sole author of these pages (ColinCross84 (talk · contribs) has also had a hand, unless they are both the same user (a separate problem)), Elliot's request for deletion cannot be considered as equivalent to a {{db-author}}. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No we are not the same person, we are friends and we were using the same ip address at the same time because I was not home. I asked him to write something to help keep the page (as I didn't understand why it had been deleted) but then I told him to delete it for me. I admit that we were both silly for not reading or checking terms. I asked him to log back in to help me get this removed but he told me he'd been blocked for vandalism.

Please delete the pages, we are both sorry for the convenience. It's also against wikipedias terms to be on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliotM26 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When does this process take place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliotM26 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AFD process is generally allowed to run for seven days, unless there is a preponderance of opinion that the article is not to be kept. In this case, there is no preponderance, as there have been no other opinions heard. However, to the reviewing administrator, I would recommend accepting the author's admission above that the article should not have been created in the first place as evidence of eligibility for WP:CSD#G7 deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2014 (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.