Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wellington International Ukulele Orchestra

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wellington International Ukulele Orchestra

Multiple editors have tagged this for A7. Article was cleaned, then spamified. Probably time for an official discussion. Oliver Twisted (Talk) 10:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes
WP:MUSIC#C12, [5]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 19:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Esradekan. I wonder how this ever got tagged. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with proviso of Cleanup - I looked at this yesterday in its earlier stages and considered tagging for CSD. I decided not to do so as I could see the notability. However, in its current state the article has only minor value and it desperately needs cleaning up. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and had the same thoughts. It was only the fact I was road crew for one of their Auckland gigs that I thought they may pass the touring criteria of wikimusic. Adding in those ref's will give me something to do over the holidays. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was listed due to the history of CSD tagging. I agree with Esradekan Gibb on the notability of the sources. Please view article page history for a synopsis of the process leading up to nomination. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 23:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close and Keep I believe consensus was achieved after sources were added. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restart or Keep and purge history. Some content in history looks suspiciously like copyvio. Better if neutral editors recreate from scratch. (I agree that the group is notable, my CSD nom was as blatant advertising). dramatic (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Purging the history would violate the GFDL as it would no longer be obvious who added what. I also haven't seen any guidelines or policies that state suspected copyright violations should be removed. They should only be removed if the violation is proven. What looks like a suspected violation to you might just look like it's copied (or may be copied from a free source) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 24 December 2008 (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.