| Revision as of 01:09, 11 March 2008 editTenPoundHammer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers279,078 edits →Fanny Grace: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:19, 11 March 2008 edit undoWolfkeeper (talk | contribs)31,832 edits →Fanny GraceNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| :::Because there's already something with everything in it. It's called the ]. We're a little less ambitious here... ] (]) 22:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | :::Because there's already something with everything in it. It's called the ]. We're a little less ambitious here... ] (]) 22:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::::The universe isn't searchable via software, only hardware. :) ] <small>'''(''' ] '''/''' ] ''')'''</small> 23:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | ::::The universe isn't searchable via software, only hardware. :) ] <small>'''(''' ] '''/''' ] ''')'''</small> 23:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Some parts are searchable that way, and google has no particular trouble finding them, but nothing really obviously stunning crops up when you do that.- (]) '''WolfKeeper''' (]) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete'''- another non-notable piece of rubbish on wikipedia. ] (]) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''- another non-notable piece of rubbish on wikipedia. ] (]) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' nn, fails ]. ] (]) 21:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' nn, fails ]. ] (]) 21:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' Claim of non-notability is arbitrary and capricious. ] (]) 00:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' Claim of non-notability is arbitrary and capricious. ] (]) 00:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :*In what way? ] <small>and his otters</small> • <sup>(]•])</sup> 01:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | :*In what way? ] <small>and his otters</small> • <sup>(]•])</sup> 01:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' any claim of notability is arbitrary and carpricious. They're just two people making music. There's no evidence they've done anything worth being the[REDACTED] for. Article is completely unverifiable- no references.- (]) '''WolfKeeper''' (]) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:19, 11 March 2008
Fanny Grace
- Fanny Grace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Doesn't seem to be a notable duo in any way. Their only single didn't chart (shame, since it was a good song), and their only album was independently released; they seem to utterly fail WP:MUSIC. Page was apparently deleted before, given the history. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination.Quarterwit (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination-their pet cat? I don't really care much.
]] (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom- non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep — Why is it necessary that subjects meet some arbitrary standard of "notability" to be included? Really, shouldn't the only thing we worry about be whether or not the encyclopedia is better off with coverage of this subject? If it's better off with it, then "rules" and "policies" (which are absolutely non-binding anyway) be damned, keep it in! So tell me, how would deleting this article make the encyclopedia better? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- You do make a good point about this, but we can't have every little thing be in an encyclopedia. I mean we can't have every local high school athlete or every small town band, it would just be too many articles. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 21:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why can't we have everything in here? Why would that be "too many"? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because there's already something with everything in it. It's called the universe. We're a little less ambitious here... Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- The universe isn't searchable via software, only hardware. :) Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 23:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Some parts are searchable that way, and google has no particular trouble finding them, but nothing really obviously stunning crops up when you do that.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- The universe isn't searchable via software, only hardware. :) Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 23:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because there's already something with everything in it. It's called the universe. We're a little less ambitious here... Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why can't we have everything in here? Why would that be "too many"? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete- another non-notable piece of rubbish on wikipedia. AndreNatas (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete nn, fails WP:BAND. KnightLago (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Claim of non-notability is arbitrary and capricious. Eclecticology (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- In what way? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 01:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete any claim of notability is arbitrary and carpricious. They're just two people making music. There's no evidence they've done anything worth being the[REDACTED] for. Article is completely unverifiable- no references.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)