Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kik Tracee

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 speedy keep: unquestionable disruption. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kik Tracee

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not Notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijustice2013 (talk • contribs)

~~Strong Delete~~. Not WP:Notable. No major billboard hit, no grammy nominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijustice2013 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- !vote in above comment struck as duplicative, as comment was by the nominator. postdlf (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I have no opinion about Kik Tracee, but the deletion nominator is deliberately disrupting wikipedia to make a point, see User contributions for proof. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's an allmusic bio, the band released an album and an EP on RCA Records, and the band received coverage in Billboard, The Guinness encyclopedia of popular music, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, and Entertainment Weekly, which is plenty, and these are just the ones found from a quick Google search. --Michig (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. All the above reasoning holds true for countless other bands and artists that we choose to delete. To keep some and delete others under the same criteria is not allowed. The above reasoning is not sufficient enough to Keep per WP guidelines and case history. 99.99.174.248 (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ignore Wikijustice2013. They are just copy/pasting the same Delete "vote" and comment in many AfDs. Also, I believe Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248, who also posted here, are sockupuppets; see the Afd for Anand Bhatt, where 99.99.174.248 voted about 20 times and was warned by admin Mr. Stradivarious. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've indef blocked the nominator as a purely disruptive account, and the IP as an obvious sockpuppet. All of this seems to be retaliation for the Anand Bhatt AFD. I don't have time right now myself, but I'd recommend speedy closing this and any other AFD started by the same account as in bad faith. postdlf (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postdlf, thank you very much. I just checked the nominator's two accounts and this was the only Afd they started. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Per Michig's sources. They were a legitimately notable band for a while. The nomination does not state a valid basis for deletion; there's no requirement that a band have a "major Billboard hit" or win a Grammy to be notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request for speedy close Per comment above from admin Postdlf. Nominator indefinitely blocked. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2012 (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.