Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombie Ghost Train
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was keep (seems it meets standards, plus nom withdrawn) Orderinchaos 21:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zombie Ghost Train[edit]
- Zombie Ghost Train (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
unsourced, no assertion of notability. contested speedy. tomasz. 12:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn per the reasoning of YechielMan below.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 12:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Has been deleted twice before, once through a PROD, once through CSD. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 12:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I've done some digging, and found some sources the verify both the band's existence but also that they've released two albums and an EP. They've toured three continents (and it seems they've pretty popular in Germany!). I'm sure there's more out there with over 57,000 ghits without including Wikipedia mirrors. The previous versions of this page have been pretty lacklustre, one was a copyvio, though no-one noticed that, the other was speedied for notability though it was unsourced. Mallanox 13:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, multitude of overseas tours mean that they pass WP:MUSIC easily. Lankiveil 02:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep per Lankiveil. John Vandenberg 03:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Lankiveil also Recurring dreams 04:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and suggest early closure Normally I would do this myself, but I'm trying to maintain good behavior. Thanks to the work of Mallanox, the article now looks nothing like the version that was sent here for AFD. I think it would be reasonable to close this as a withdrawn nomination, and if anyone still wants to delete it, start over. Just my opinion. YechielMan 07:16, 10 June 2007 (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.