Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mob Rules (band)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep in its current form. Death phoenix 05:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mob Rules (band)[edit]

The article states that the band doesn't exist. Then neither should the article. Radiant! 10:58, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

- The nominator asserts that he doesn't appreciate third-party additions of pastel boxes that wrongly paraphrase his statements into his nominations. Radiant! 13:37, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- band vanity. - Longhair | Talk 11:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hmm I don't see how saying "There's no a band named Mob Rulez" can be construed as vanity. Actually there is a band called Mob Rules [1], and they've released 4 studio albums, if anyone wanted to make an article on them. Kappa 14:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- In that case, suspected attack page (aka reverse vanity). Ok, stubify and list on wanted articles? Radiant! 14:35, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  - I think it's just a mistake. Could be stubified, could also be deleted and revert to the red links from whence it came. Kappa 15:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article does not establish notability, possible vandalism. Megan1967 23:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Reverse vanity, huh? That's a new one. —RaD Man (talk) 07:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Keep. it seems most people are fine with it being changed to an article about the real band "Mob Rules" [2] so I'm going to turn it into a stub about them as opp. to the "reverse vanity" ;-) that's there at the moment. -- Lochaber 18:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.