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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete.Can't sleep, clown will eat me11:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Gone Mad (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

Skunk with a Porpoise (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

Listen... (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

FailsWP:BAND. All information appears to come from the band's own website.ShadowHalo01:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all orspeedy delete all per nomination. Away with ye, come back when you're famous!Jobjörn (Talk °contribs)01:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. I'm not so sure this isn't a speedy candidate. --Kicking22201:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom.--Grand Slam 701:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Albums appear to be self-released. No hits onAmazon.com orCDBaby. They have only been "playing local parties and then hosting their own shows in local venues". Therefore, no indication they would passWP:MUSIC.Ohconfucius02:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete al per nom. Not notable at all.TSO1D02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, failsWP:MUSIC as a walled garden of non-notable band and album information. --Kinu^t/_c02:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom.-K3702:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom.MER-C03:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as insufficiently notable perWP:BAND. -- Satori Son04:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. I completely agree, this totally failsWP:MUSIC. --Kyo cat^{¿Quíeres hablar?}04:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete allWP:VANITYMallanox05:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per every reason above.Sr1305:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all utter failureWP:BAND--John Lake06:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Speedy Delete all - orDelete if this fails CSD criteria for some reason. I don't even see an ASSERTION of notability in there, though, so I think this can be speedied.Perel07:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I figured the side projects, albums, and being featured on a compilation with very notable artists could be construed as assertions (even if they don't succeed at doing so). —ShadowHalo07:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all- non notable, and reasons listed in the comments above.CattleGirl ^{talk |e@}10:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete all does not meetWP:MUSIC requirements and no real assertions of notability. Plus with no hits on Amazon or CDBaby, as mentioned above, does indicate more signs of non-notability.¤~Persian Poet Gal^(talk)16:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - The consensus so far appears to be delete every Wikipedia independent topic related to Monkey Gone Mad. I found a few moreCategory:Monkey Gone Mad images,Category:Monkey Gone Mad albums, andCategory:Monkey Gone Mad. If there are others, I assume that the administrator will delete them as well. As for my delete vote, only notices regarding the appearances of Monkey Gone Mad have made it to the newspapers; nothing about the formation of the group or the history of the group. Monkey Gone Mad really need to start releasing PRs so that newspapers will cover them better. If they eventually make the newspapers, there might be enough information to sustain an independent Wikipedia article on Monkey Gone Mad. As part of the deletion, it would be kind of an editor to list Monkey Gone Mad within an appropriate article. I tried to, but couldn't figure out where they could be listed.--Jreferee17:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom; failsWP:BAND too.Split Infinity^(talk)23:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,Delete, andDelete no assertion of notability.WVhybrid05:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.S h a r kf a c e2 1 706:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too much first hand info ("the band states", etc.)Milto LOL pia03:05, 19 December 2006 (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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.