Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reboot The Robot
- 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. Jayjg (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}. |
- Reboot The Robot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I see nothing in the relevent google searches for this band's name that resembles a reliable source, as defined by WP:RS. I also see no evidence of notability as defined by WP:GNG or WP:BAND. As such, it does not appear this band meets the minimum requirements for an article, so this article should probably be deleted. Jayron32 22:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I see plenty relevant. The band has numerous pages ans presences on sites such as MySpace, PureVolume, Nuzic, Unsigned.com, OurStage.com, Musicreview.co.za, Amazon.com, iTunes, numerous online lyric databases, Youtube.com, eventful.com, last.fm, mp3.com, Shrednews.tumblr.com, napster.com, rhapsody.com, imeem.com, emiestreet.com, myxer.com, facebook.com, twitter, and more. To say that there is nothing relvant when searching this band's name on google is IRRELEVANT. Wikipedia is here to provide anyone with information on just about anything. Just because a band isnt a top 10 artist is no reason to flag a wiki entry for deletion. If all bands fit into your idealistic idea of what a band truly is, the only musicians wikipedia would recognize would be The Beatles and Michael Jackson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.128.35 (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I suggest that you read WP:BAND and WP:RS for guidance as to notability of bands for Wikipedia purposes and reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish otability -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Interesting! No reliable sources eh? Hmmmm. Weird how shred news, one of the leading indie artist and indie review sites is listed as a reference, and look! If you go over to shred news, there it is! PS: Someone alerted RTR to your crusade to take them off of wikipedia, and theyve alerted their myspace as well as their twitter accounts. Youre gonna have 20,000 very angry RTR fans on yo ass!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.128.35 (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- We're not terribly interested in deleting the article over the alternative, which is providing real reliable sources as defined by the page Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability. Fans of the band are free to provide those sources, but 20000 people coming by and adding nothing to the discussion aside from "plz don't delete my favorite band. They are sooper cool" is likely to have no effect. This is not personal, if you have links to reliable sources, please provide them, and we'll reevaluate this situation. --Jayron32 18:09, 15 December 2009 (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.