Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Faggott

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 --JForget 00:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Faggott

Fails WP:MUSIC's band section. They have no notable members, haven't been nominated for a major award, no charting songs, ect. Tavix (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VERY STRONG KEEP There appears to be an antipsytrance contingent on Wikipedia, trying to get articles on this genre deleted. Texas Faggott are very notable, ask any UK psytrance fan and they will probably have one or two of their albums. They are also one of the main suomisaundi bands. I urge you all to keep this article. Tris2000 (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to show the band's notability per WP:MUSIC. Schuym1 (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tris2000: Take a look at the WP:MUSICBIO section. If you can prove the band meets any one of the twelve requirements, I'll happily withdraw my nomination. Tavix (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only releases are on a non-notable label, no assertation per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to meet criteria of WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google gives nothing but blogs, press-releases, and other non-notable stuff. And when I thought I was looking at something moderately meaningful and possibly notable, turns out it comes from the record company. Say, Tris2000, maybe I'm biased here too--but what is 'psytrance'? Can I judge the article on its merits without knowing that? Drmies (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is proven by the existence of verifiable information in reliable sources confirming that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, not by anecdotal reports of what you might hear if you interviewed an individual fan of a music genre. Delete unless real sources start showing up. Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable
Delete: per WP:MUSIC. Un school 07:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Not even close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 3 December 2008 (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.