Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flash Brothers

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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Brothers

No coverage in reliable sources neon white talk 20:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One site has A LOT of coverage, some user-generated but some not: [1], quite a lot of news articles on that one site alone. But other sources cover them too. If you search in other languages you will find more coverage...articles written in detail: [2], [3]. This seems enough to establish notability to me! Yes, they are not really known in the U.S., but they seem very well-known internationally! Cazort (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are verifiable or known to be relaible sources. A lot of non-notable self-published sources doesn't amount to multiple reliable sources. --neon white talk 12:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think Resident Advisor isn't reliable? They have various staff writers with editorial oversight. They're a relatively well-known site (they apparently won a People's Choice Webby). It's not the New York Times, but it doesn't need to be. It's a third party published resource which whose "authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Wickethewok (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the sources now included in the article seem reasonably reliable and independent. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 02:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the current sources in the article and those listed above, there's also [4]/[5] and [6]. Wickethewok (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of which are 'independent' and all are self published. Again reliable sources are needed. --neon white talk 12:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage found from a Google news search.--Michig (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google news hits is not a notability criteria even if your claim was correct which it isnt. [[7]]. --neon white talk 12:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try searching for all dates rather than just the past month. Number of hits is not a notability criterion but the coverage evidenced by those hits is.--Michig (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 09:13, 9 May 2009 (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.