The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If you have not already done so, please click here and add ((Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2010/7 Seconds)) at the top of the box. Thank you. Click here to return to the main RfD page.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to  Keep. There's a consensus to keep this article. Also the article has been improved and is no longer that short. -Barras ^talk 15:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7 Seconds (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

Belinda Lydia Tilney (talk) has nominated this page for deletion for the reason:

I think 7 seconds should be deleted because it is so short and so unimportant. Please write your comments, because I'm still very bad at these sort of things.

Please discuss this deletion below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options that are not just "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

• Keep - notable, there's an article on en. Could do with more expanding. Nifky^{^} 06:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's short, but it's been made in good faith I think, and I agree with Nifky that though it does need expanding, it doesn't necessarily have to be deleted. ^_^ Classical Esther 06:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yep. Agree with the above. Needs to be kept and expanded.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 06:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It is short, too short. And according to WP:AWW the 50% of the article should be deleted or at least referenced.
  • Nifky: Arguing its relevance citing other wikipedia it's nothing, please use your own reasonings.
  • Classical Esther: Saying it is done in good faith does not change the fact that it is too short.
  • Gordonorox24: Yes, it is a stub.. almost

Regards, --すけ Nya? 22:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not adequately assert notability. Lauryn Ashby (d) 23:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC) change to Keep per Phantomsteve's improvements. Lauryn Ashby (d) 01:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakly keep After hearing the objections, I am beginning to change my mind about keeping it...but still, if only it is expanded according to English Wikipedia, I still think it has potential. Thank you for stating your objections, Nya. Classical Esther 05:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, a google search returned many results, including itunes downloads, origins of the band, show listings... it seems the hardest part is finding sources to verify their notability. They certainly seem notable, having been a band for thirty years it looks like. Finding valid sources seems the main issue. Article length seems like a moot point as far as deleting it. Why delete it for shortness when information can be added to the article in hardly anytime at all? --cremepuff222 (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps if more people would help to improve and make the article longer, we could keep it, but there are rare people like you, Cremepuff222, in Simple English Wikipedia, and nobody seems to be improving it... I've never heard of the band, though. Still, don't you think we should delete it? It's not very important!

Well, anyway, thanks for the helpful comment! Miss Tilney (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I am quite in the minority here. :P I'll see if I can expand it and maybe the article can be kept. --cremepuff222 (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You must pardon me, I come from a wikipedia that does not allow that kind of articles (super short ones) and they are deleted in sight with a fast deletion policy. If this does not apply here I'm sorry, but I think short articles are not the way it should be. Do not make a short article and hope another editor will extend it... I think that is not the way. --すけ Nya? 06:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nya's right, to my opinion, I think so too. When somebody is making a new article, they shouldn't expect somebody else to do it all for them; they have the responsibility to make it as long and appropriate as possible, because practically everybody is going to get information from there. I don't think anybody might have any advantage of the article 7 seconds... But no offense, of course, the more comments the better! Nobody's opinion is perfect, after all... :) Miss Tilney (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is not enough information to make a short article longer, then yes it should be deleted. However, it seems that the band is somewhat notable based on google hits, and I'm sure that if someone could find a good source, the article could be made longer. At this point the article just needs some attention. If the artcle can't be made longer in a reasonable amount of time, then it should be deleted. --cremepuff222 (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the someone who "could find a good source" is not here, apparently... Nobody is trying to change it, at least. But Cremepuff222's quite right, too! Alright, I'll try to change it later... But the whole article is so short, it stresses me to look at it. But perhaps it's because I'm so sensitive and picky... Oh well, thanks for the advice, Puff(can I call you that? :P)! You're very helpful. We would really need more people like you and Nya in Simple English Wikipedia. Cheers!Miss Tilney (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, feel free to call me anything of a "Puffish" nature, Miss tilney. :) --cremepuff222 (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thankyou ^^*, Puff of the "Puffish" nature. And Nya, thankyou for your comments, too. But I'm still wondering if you should delete it or not...After all, bands aren't that important. Besides, the article doesn't have any references, websites, external links, or "See more"s, either! It's so short and unedible for anybody in Simple Wikipedia. As I said before, I'll change it later. Miss Tilney (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems notable, need references tough.--Sinbad (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The band has an article on eight different editions of Wikipedia; notability isn't really in question, in my opinion. It could certainly stand to be expanded, however. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Well we can make an article for every city in the world. Let's go catch the English Wikipedia numbers with articles like this one. --すけ Nya? 20:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article cannot be expanded. This bands page can be expanded. That's the difference.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 20:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious that article can't be expanded? I must be in another plane of existence then. Brandon, Iowa --すけ Nya? 20:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:N.--  † CR₉₀  23:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A quick search of Google News Archive came across a few refs. Most were paid-for newspaper archives, but I added 2 of the free ones (along with more information). I didn't look further than 1994, but I'm sure if I did then I would have found more references - and if anyone here has access to the "pay-per-view" ones, then we could probably access more! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, great work Phantomsteve. :) Since the issues have been addressed and fixed, I see no reason for this AfD to continue. --cremepuff222 (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Puff, Phantomsteve has certainly done a good job on it. Nice refs, too... I hope the article will improve even more, through many skilled editors. Thankyou for participating so nicely in the article and on Wikipedia!! ^^ Miss Tilney (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This request is due to close seven days after it was filed; that is on approx. Wednesday, 31 January 2010 at 6:37 am, although it may be closed more quickly due to WP:SNOW.

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.