Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kunt and the Gang (band)

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Sean William @ 21:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Kunt and the Gang (band)

Kunt and the Gang (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Appears to be non-notable local pub band. Also, user that created article has same username as the "record company" the band are signed to. Liverpool Scouse 16:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Also, from looking at the article creator's talk page, it appears to have been deleted once before for similar reasons. User talk:Disco minge ... Liverpool Scouse 16:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I'd also suggest that this is a WP:HOAX and WP:Vandalism. --Evb-wiki 16:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Related AfD : Album 1 & Album 2. KTC 18:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Bad news: this disgusting one-man "band" really does exist, although most of the proof thereof is his indefatigable self-promotion, so it's neither a hoax nor vandalism. Good news: there are only 175 hits on Google UK [1] and no evidence this fellow passes WP:MUSIC.  RGTraynor  21:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, spam, COI, take your pick. Realkyhick 22:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• keep:Band do play pubs and clubs but have a sizeable following across the UK. As proved by a nationwide tour. The lyrical content may not be to everyones taste but thats no reason to delete. Artist has been reviewed by national magazines and newspapers including The Guardian and NME. Also has a cartoon in Knave which again, although pretty smutty, still has national exposure. --Catten666 23:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC) — Catten666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The point that I have not made much contributions is irelevant. I have ammended a few articles anonomously as they were only minor changes. A wrong link on the Rugby town and a wrong discography for Danger Danger's Live album. I don't have the time to contribute all the time. However when looking for information on this band I thought I'd try here and found your information was limited. As I had more information I decided to add it to help other users as I had a spare 30 mins. I will state again, this band hits 2 of the prequistes you have set. 1. they have been on a nationwide tour and 2. they have been written about in respectable publications including the Guardian and NME. Therefore this article should be kept. The band is real so it isn't a hoax, or vandalism. If needed I can provide photographs and venue flyers from all over the country as well as scans of the press this band have got. The people who have said to delete seem to find his music offensive, which is fair enough, but that doesn't detract from the fact that he does exist, and he does make music and people will be looking for information on him. Surely the fact he says some rude words isn't a reason to delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catten666 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 5 August 2007

For proof of said tour and a scan of an NME review and a "Whats playing on the NME stereo" check out the bands myspace, link in the article. The current tour has taken in London, Milton Keynes, Cambridge, Birmingham, Leicester, Doncaster, Blackpool, Edinburgh and Glasgow. This is nationwide.--Catten666 15:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete no notability has been asserted and no sources have been provided which support a claim - the ones already mentioned prove the band exists but nothing more. • nancy • 14:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 22:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The group passes WP:MUSIC 1."has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." Sources can be found on this press page. dissolve^talk 16:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment well, I'm sure that someone could use those cuttings to reconstruct the original references to put into the article to establish notability. If that's done, I'm sure we'll end up with a keep result. Well, pretty sure. SamBC 03:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (sighs heavily) I took myself out of the Delete column on the strength of that. Sskin mags, college papers and indy weeklies aren't impressive as sources, but there are a lot of clippings there.  RGTraynor  12:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, one of those clippings was from the Guardian, one of the major national dailies in the UK. SamBC 13:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hundreds and hundreds of bands get into small indie music papers from time to time, and over a few years could probably collect a few to scan, as shown on the band's website here. Hundreds of non-notable bands also go on "national tours", it doesn't make them notable (I'm in a Liverpool band that has played in many other cities including London, I'd never dream of putting us on here). Also it appears the Guardian article was a mention in a piece regarding obscene lyrics along with other non-notable bands, rather than any general musical notability for this band in particular.Liverpool Scouse 19:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - The band also has a regular mention in adult magazines Fiesta and Knave. I don't think these can be deemed as respectable publications though. However I would imagine both Knave and Fiesta are read by thousands of people of each month. I would hardly call the NME a small indie paper. I thought it was one of the leading weekly publications on music.
      • You're quite right about the NME - it's not a small indie paper, and it is one of the leading publications on music. They do cover more fringe and indie bands/artists/events than, say, Q, but that doesn't alter the status or reliability of the publication. Remember our definitions of notability - fringe does not imply non-notable. SamBC 20:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per dissolve^talk. Mathmo ^Talk 21:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • • Comment - You know this place really is the pits at time. Both albums which link to this article have been deleted, despite the comments in them saying "keep for same reasons as this article", and "may be an idea to wait until a decision has been reached on this article". People waste there time submitting relevant information, trying to get as much information about an article as possible and then someone deletes without first reading the comments on it. I wasted a good 10 minutes per article filling in details, finding running times and such just for someone to delete it. This article still exisits however, probably because it does pass WP:MUSIC, so why were its related articles deleted? Seriously I don't know why I bothered. Not a good first impression of someone new to wiki. --Catten666 09:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak keep per the existence of multiple reliable published sources about them, although they're possibly trivial.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep NME coverage counts as reliable, if only barely. National tour (both england and scotland) is a enough of a tour per WP:MUSIC imo. Adult Magazine coverage is reliable. They fall on like a 2 out of 10 as far as my keep scale goes.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

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.