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 no consensus. MBisanztalk 12:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm not familiar with the field, so I'm not sure whether these two meet the criteria of
WP:ARTIST. However, the article itself is fishy based on the fact that
Jonthemurray (
talk·contribs) was the main contributor, and it is fair to say there is a
conflict of interest. Usually we discourage
self-promotion.
bender235 (
talk) 22:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dane2007 (
talk) 19:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 00:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete I can't find evidence for meeting
WP:ARTIST (their reviews don't meet 4c), and the article doesn't claim any. For GNG, there are three independent RS with nontrivial coverage available: reviews in the
Post & Courier,
Charleston City Paper (Cohen) and
CCP (Oyer). (There's more in their
press clippings, but nothing substantial as far as I can see).) These sources do not have enough depth of coverage to verify basic encyclopedic information like their location, major career events, and influence within their field.
FourViolas (
talk) 04:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep, I guess. Maybe. It's borderline. The Charleston City Paper says "videos like 'Awkward Sex' and 'Auto Phone Sex' (not related) have amassed millions of views" on YouTube. If that's true, doesn't that show evidence of meeting
WP:ENT #2, "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following"? Not sure, maybe millions of views is common. If it is common, they might not make the cut. The Post & Courier review is a plus, but the 'Charleston City Paper is not worth much, so you probably don't have multiple in-depth references. It does look like a promotional article. I dunno, I better stop before I talk myself out of my vote.
Herostratus (
talk) 14:30, 22 August 2016 (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.