Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam (band)

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. KTC (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam (band)

Adam (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I'm not particularly sure how to check this, but others have expressed concern over whether this band meets

• Delete per
  WP:NBAND -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 20:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom, Fails
  WP:NBAND. --–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Along with the policies mentioned it does not meet
  WP:GNG. MarnetteD|Talk 21:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete. Lots of coverage but of the event, not the band, and mostly trivial, lightweight, click-baitish coverage as sites know a headline with some combination of 'orgasm', 'video', 'NSFW' will attract lots of clicks. No in depth coverage, little on the band itself. That's
  WP:NMUSIC. Non-notable whichever way you look at it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I agree with all of you, it probably fails
  talk) 11:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -My search for sources just brought up some "Hey guys, come watch this sexy video" Buzzfeed type articles that largely consists of them linking to the video. No sort of significant coverage that the
  WP:GNG requires. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a chronicle of every lame publicity stunt that bands have made in an effort to grab the brass ring. Carrite (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't even approach
  WP:BAND. Miniapolis 22:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Hilarious. Lighten up people. Worth it for the Backpackers parody alone. Encyclopedic: future generations, pondering the collapse of our civilization, will likely seize upon this in wonderment and say "This... this is where they went completely off the rails". What could be of more scholarly interest than that? Herostratus (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bands can become notorious and achieve extensive independent coverage for their actions rather than their music (e.g. Pussy Riot), but the coverage here all seems to be channelling Beavis and Butthead and doesn't rise above the level of trivial. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -
  general notability guide. Buisiness Insider, HuffPo, and Gizmodo are sufficient. Tarc (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Meh. We got so much more shit that is so much less notable. Keep it. Once we accepted HuffPo we opened up the floodgates, and we'll just have to suck it up. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2015 (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.