Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partycat
: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. Bishonen | talk 07:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
=[[Partycat]]=
:{{la|Partycat}} – (
:({{Find sources AFD|Partycat}})
Looks like a non-notable band. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. There are no reliable sources that discuss the subject. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 12:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA1000 12:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
:weak keep : soft local news coverage [http://www.insidehalton.com/opinion-story/4035217-partycat-partners-with-young-heart-music-to-re-release-album-9-lives/# here] and magazine coverage here [http://www.thescenemagazine.ca/a-phone-call-with-partycat/# here] (although with everything online these days, what even is a magazine?). While current article can be toned down (are they literally "rioting across the roads"?), it's plausible that there is more reliable coverage. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. With respect to the sources noted above, the first is InsideHalton. That is web site for a group of local community newspapers which includes the Burlington Post which is community paper for this band's home town. Community newspapers are not useful for notability as they will write about almost anything local. The second link is marginally better, but it is simply an interview with one of the band members. The band may be notable in the future, but at this point, they have self-released one EP, and nothing else. -- Whpq (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Agree with deletion. The article makes no real claim of notability and certainly lacks any verification. Maybe later, not now. JodyB talk 14:22, 11 February 2015 (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.