Subject is notable to its location. I wasn't finished with the article, I only had time to write a single paragraph describing the band and its members - I was going to add some more updates and sources today but it was deleted before I could do that. I would appreciate it if you guys could reverse the deletion so I can finish the article. I have no issue with sending the article to my userspace. Thank you Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The article itself asserted no notability, and I've done some looking into them - their Myspace says they formed in late 2007, and under 1000 Google hits for "First Class Liars" - including a lot of uses of that phrase not related to the band - include a number of "also playing" listings at local clubs, etc. I don't see any substantial coverage. Essentially, the band is miles from meeting WP:MUSIC from what I could find, so the deletion is quite appropriate. Tony Fox(arf!)04:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The band has been playing at some pretty notable places, including Cox Sports Arena and Soma. Could you guys at least put the article is my userspace? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entirety of the article body was: " First Class Liars are an American rock band from Escondido, California. The current members are Chris Andrews (vocals), Matt Bridgeford (guitar), Tom Blanton (bass guitar), and Christian F.S (drums). " The rest was an infobox, and the fully justified speedy tag. Playing at notable places does not meet WP:MUSIC - notable non-trivial references, albums on notable labels, national touring, etc. do. Tony Fox(arf!)16:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are still welcome to write an article about them if you can find evidence they pass the criteria at WP:MUSIC, however. Just because it was deleted doesn't mean it's impossible to write a passable article about them. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWell could you guys perhaps send the article to my userspace so i can continue researching? it took me like an hour to get the code right. please? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I would like to have a temporary review of the page by having it restored to my user page please. Just want to see if there's anyway i can make the article worthy. 5150emergency (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page had exactly two edits in history. The complete text of the first version read Melodramatic.com is a blogging site, started by <name redacted>. The second edit was a redirect to Melodramatic (website). That page had a longer history but was deleted as a result of this AfD discussion. I'm guessing that's the page you want. If you'll specify an email address in your user profile, I or another admin can email you the last content of that page. Rossami(talk)20:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If 5150emergency can find anyway to make the article worthy (on wikipedia), then this will violate the GFDL. You should simply userfy the deleted article for him, trivial history or not, unless there is a reason not to, in which case 5150emergency should not be allowed to make any use of it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As of 14:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC), a copy has been mailed to the requesting user. The message did include a note asking the user to remind us about potential GFDL issues (and the need to conduct a history-only undeletion) if/when the content is deemed approrpiate to restore to the encyclopedia. Rossami(talk)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Endorse speedy-deletion. I agree with GRBerry that this was more credibly deletable under criterion G10 but the A7 deletion also appears valid. The page also falls afoul of WP:NOT#NEWS (though if that had been the only reason for deletion, it would have required AfD discussion). Rossami(talk)17:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I believe that the article on German Goo Girls should be restored.
Since there are article for 2 Girls 1 Cup, Bangbus, Adam & Eve, and other article with such pornographic content, their should be no reason for it's deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanzhavegoodwiki (talk • contribs) 08:46, 12 June 2008
As with all the times it's been re-created (lots!), this is going to need third-party reliable sources before an article sticks around. Like, y'know, the AFD closer stated. Endorse. —Cryptic09:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the contentious history of both the German Goo Girls and at least one of the redirects of the same name, it would be much more prudent to start a new article within userspace, and then approach the proposition of establishing it in article space. Since the last article at that name was a redirect, it would make no sense to recreate the redirect without having the proposed, fully-formed and cited article ready to go. If this is an attempt to overturn the deletion of the redirect, I endorse deletion of it. B.Wind (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to proposer: "because there is an article on (XXXX) in Wikipedia" is not a valid justification for keeping an article here in the first place. There are many instances that have been shown that the indicated article in the "justification" was here by mistake. Also, deletion review is not Articles for deletion redux. Its primary purpose is to review if the proceedings were properly done by the admin (and in the case where a new article is proposed for a title that has been deleted several times, it would be best to work with an admin for such a proposed recreation). B.Wind (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). No evidence has been presented here, in the AFD, in the RfD or in the deleted article itself that this organization meets any of Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion standards. I find no process problems in the AfD discussion. (I recuse myself from consideration of the RfD discussion because I participated in it.) Rossami(talk)15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. So article A is kept but article B isn't? Look at what article B doesn't have. Hint: it has nothing to do with porn. In this case, it's third party sources. Get them, then it can be overturned. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, lack of sourcing was the concern at the AfD, and no sources have been provided to address that concern. If significant amounts of reliable, independent source material can be found, then we might be able to take a different look. SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in restoring and re-writing the B. Scott page. I am a third party writer with an interest in providing a clear and concise page for B. Scott. I understand the need to present him as not only notable but also of interest to the GLBT and African-American communities. I have compiled a list of sources to back up all articles and will not publish anything that is not sourced. I am willing to work with an admin to make sure this page is of interest the the Wikipedia community.
I would like the admins to note that other "Internet Celebrities" are featured on Wikipedia, and as this phenomenon grows, this will continue to be the case. Of note: Michael Buckley, Chris Crocker, Tay Zonday and even The Star Wars kid have their own pages on Wikipedia. While some are better-written than others, each holds their own place in the lore of the Internet Celebrity phenomenon. I intend to show how B. Scott belongs in line with these celebrities.
Also, I would like to note that while the previous Articles for Deletion discussion was inundated by fans of B. Scott, this will not be the case in the future. I intend to re-write this page in a dignified manner and will continuously monitor it against any sort of problems. Thank you for your consideration. RcktManChgo (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
