- 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 redirect to Black Veil Brides. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jinxx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual member of a band. While the band itself appears to meet notability requirements, a Google search[1] does not provide evidence - in my opinion - that this individual band member meets WP:MUSICBIO. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 08:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Black Veil Brides. The sources I found are either interviews or plain news references, but they all relate to the band and are not independent sources. Minima© (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect This is a fairly obvious candidate to be redirected rather than deleted, and I can't imagine why the nom went for AfD. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 13:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my humble opinion, Wikipedia has too many pointless redirects. If the subject isn't notable enough for their own article, then why are we wasting kilobytes on them? As a general rule, I lean toward the deletionist side of things in instances such as this. I fully expect this nomination to end with a result of redirect, but am interested in a debate. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 05:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion is neither here nor there. See WP:PERF and WP:NOTPAPER – there is no concept of "wasting kilobytes" here on Wikipedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 07:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but it would appear that you missed the point of my statement. I am well aware of the two pages that you linked to. The "wasting kilobytes" statement was not intended to be taken literally. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 08:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How should it be taken then? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 19:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but it would appear that you missed the point of my statement. I am well aware of the two pages that you linked to. The "wasting kilobytes" statement was not intended to be taken literally. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 08:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion is neither here nor there. See WP:PERF and WP:NOTPAPER – there is no concept of "wasting kilobytes" here on Wikipedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 07:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my humble opinion, Wikipedia has too many pointless redirects. If the subject isn't notable enough for their own article, then why are we wasting kilobytes on them? As a general rule, I lean toward the deletionist side of things in instances such as this. I fully expect this nomination to end with a result of redirect, but am interested in a debate. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 05:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 27 April 2011 (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.