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.
@C.Fred What is considered a reliable source? Also the wikipedia article literally only has 4, one of which is the bands own website, and the rest are dead links nowadays. Danimations2 (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred I read it and it seems to agree with my points overall about Red Abbott, they mention deprecated sources should not be used, and neither should sources connected to the subject. Now I think either both should go down or both should stay, since this seems like a very similar case. Danimations2 (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Danimations2 With only one presumptive reliable source (there's a gateway error on the website), Needlepeen is on shaky ground with respect to notability. By contrast, the coverage of RA, as well as what the reliable sources document, establish notability there. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no sign that this passes WP:GNG. I've tried looking for the LA Times interview in the WebArchive but they don't have it (which is kinda weird since most LA Times articles are usually archived). The article suggests that the band is notable for being "one of the first internet bands" but the latter have been around for 25 years. Pichpich (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I questioned that too. Heck we had Weezer on the Windows 95 installation CD back in the day and that got distributed online. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also noticed that this is not even close to one of the first Internet bands; see that WP article to find that such acts have existed since the late 1990s while this one formed in 2023. So what does Needlepeen have other than their own false belief that they pioneered something? Nothing but their own social media and basic streaming directory services. They do not have the reliable media coverage that is required here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing of notability in the article apart from a dubious, unsourced claim of being 'the first internet band'. If you removed the WP:PUFFERY there would be nothing left. InDimensional (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2024 (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.
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit00:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These are the onlyarticlesthat I can find on google when I search DOVO Solingen. Although WP:GOOGLEHITS is generally no guarantee that the subject is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, I have seen no indication that it meets requirements. Additionally, of the 6 sources shown on the Wiki page, 4 of them are sourced directly from the DOVO website, 1 is apparently from a book I can't view, and another is from thelocalde. Please do correct me if you see otherwise but I see no proof of enduring or present notability. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more participants in order to close this discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!05:25, 7 April 2024 (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.
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.
Cannot find actual sources that state "Sajdah Places in Quran" and also per WP:NOTGUIDE. Also I know AFDNOTCLEANUP but this is written religiously. 🍪CookieMonster00:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to Sujud Tilawa seems an obvious solution, given that the opening words are "Sajda in Quran, also known as Sujud at-Tilawah" (with a piped link). Any encyclopedic content here that can be sourced can be added to that page. UrielAcosta (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2024 (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.
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.
Speedy delete: There is a sockfarm that has long tried to assert (usually in draftspace, but occasionally in mainspace) that TeenNick has a block devoted to Nick Jr.-type programming in some form. It's all a hoax (G3), and the socking probably will tip this into G5 territory too. WCQuidditch☎✎00:10, 24 March 2024 (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.
