Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ran-Tan Waltz (2nd nomination)

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ran-Tan Waltz

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

Contested PROD, and as it stands, fails WP:BAND. Sources mostly self-published, and one mention in a local newspaper and a handful of radio plays cannot make them notable. Rodhull andemu 15:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I hadn't realised this had already been listed in January, but then its authors didn't defend it, although somebody has contested the PROD. Well, the band weren't notable then, and nothing has changed. Rodhull andemu 15:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - currently fails all points of WP:BAND. If their live shows in "many cities up and down the country" can be sourced by a non-trivial source, they might just barely scrape by - though, since their first show brought "16 people" and "descended into an anarchic demolition of equipment", I doubt it's possible. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 19:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ...for now they don't have notability (notoriety? This is a punk band after all). Perhaps soon they will, but then it can be re-created. --Kickstart70TC 00:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, delete the page if its upsetting so many people. Quite sad really. Surely more important things in life, than debating wether an article is 'worthy' of keeping. Oh, if it does go, and we become 'notable' at a later date, we will forbid our name to be used on this site. I dont like the idea of people 'only wanting to know' when it suits them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.196.17 (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added the venues to the wiki we've played. Let me know here what proof of 'notability' we need here and i'll get onto it. Not that im sure its worth it, if the site is full of people with nothing better to do than find faults with articles that arent hurting anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.196.17 (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude is not helping the situation here. Just saying. If you want to convince us to keep your article, trying to threaten us with "forbidding your name" doesn't help. Threats don't work on Wikipedia. My vote remains delete. Your sources do not show that you have done a national tour, only one show that you have performed. This band still fails all criteria of WP:BAND. If you can find a source that shows you have done multiple shows through your country, I will change to weak keep. Your article CLAIMS that you have, but it remains outsourced. And if you're really "not sure it's worth it", why add more sources? Just say you want it gone and it can be speedy deleted. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 18:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a real easy comeback: WP:NOTMYSPACE. The band member above all but admitted that they're using WP for self-promotion. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if they are going to forbid WP from using their name in the future, why not do the same now? I was actually leaning toward "Weak Keep" because a couple of the recently-added references seem serviceable. But researching those sources was quite sad of me because there are surely more important things in life. Yes, so many other things are more important that I have already forgotten the name of this band. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I would agree that they're not doing themselves any favours with their attitude, neither are they familiar with our notability guidelines on bands. However, they may be very good, but this far have failed to meet our criteria for inclusion, and that, sadly for many such bands, is the bottom line. Should they become notable in some future form, fine. Until then, no. Rodhull andemu 01:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone give me an example of "a source that shows you have done multiple shows through your country". We have been in alot more magazines/internet sites, but i didnt want to add too many to the references because i thought people might get bored of it. Sorry for the attitude earlier, i just cant believe so many people are that upset at our page they are contesting it so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.219.12 (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is "upset" at your page, it's just that rules are rules, and the rules say that this page should be deleted. It's nothing personal, nobody is mad, it's just simply rules. That being said, no, I can't give you an example. If I had an example that proves you've done multiple shows in your country, I'd add it to the article myself. You claim you've been in magazines and websites, but have yet to show that. Nobody is going to "get bored" of having sources. Mostly, we are looking for something that is not a local paper or website, something that is national or, even better, international, about your band or your shows. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 13:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few links to the ticket details etc from gigs from the last tour I could find on the net... let me know if you need anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.89.16 (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2010 (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.