Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture Killers

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 delete. Wizardman 18:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Culture Killers

Fails WP:MUSIC. This is a typical nn band. The references do not assert notability and are not from reliable sources. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria. --Pmedema (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable band. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Who cares about notability? Who cares about WP:MUSIC? They're irrelevant criteria, and totally non-binding. Really, all we need to ask ourselves is this: does coverage of this subject make the encyclopedia better, or does it make it worse? As best as I can tell, the answer to that question is: it makes the encyclopedia better. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraging the use of Wikipedia as a dumping ground/spam site for every half-baked musical act/garage band around does NOT make the encyclopedia better: just the opposite, in fact. --Calton | Talk 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does keeping information out make Wikipedia better? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By not turning Wikipedia into a site where any garage band can put unsupported crap about their upcoming high school gigs. Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Corvus cornix_talk 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with having articles about garage bands and their gigs? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then how would we be any different than MySpace? Corvus cornix_talk 01:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For one, because of our focus on NPOV rather than publicity-whoring. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how do we ensure NPOV if all of the references are to band-created websites? Corvus cornix_talk 18:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found. 62.136.34.82 (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Calton | Talk 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 Will ^(talk) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy delete notability not established. Possibly A7 jj137 (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a borderline case as they would pass criteria 12 if the "independent film" was broadcasted (I have no idea if it was or not). ~~As for the tour, if their participation was covered by reliable sources then they could just about pass criteria 4.~~ They're not going to pass #4, I've just searched for different combinations of words to find a review and found nothing, not even local coverage. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 23:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has only been here two days. Nominator has failed his responsibility to show that he has made any effort to negotiate a solution to the problems. Eclecticology (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep it friendly now, there's no need to comment on the nominator. The article has been looked at by all the editors who are discussing it in this debate. Secondly, I'm not sure I understand your vote. Are you saying you would like to see the article have more time to be worked on? If this does get deleted, I'm sure no one would be against userfying the content and allowing the creator or other interested editors to improve it. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 01:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication is an anti-solution, as it goes against the whole concept of a wiki. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if consensus says it's not suitable for main space at present and there is a chance that it can be improved within months, isn't that better than outright deletion? Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then consensus is totally ass-backwards. Suitability for mainspace is determined by the subject matter of the article, not the current state of the article. The right solution for a poorly-written article is to leave it in the mainspace so that people can actually find it and fix it! That's how wikis work--it's not really supposed to be one or a few people just work on an article in the skunkworks and then unleash it on the world; rather, it starts out as maybe one or two poorly-written sentences, then as people come along they add their own bits of information, maybe fix some of the prose so it reads better, and over time it grows and improves organically. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikis don't always work in that way. Take Binh Danh for instance - this article started in my sandbox and was not unleashed into the wiki until I knew it was up to a standard that would pass db-bio criteria. I can't speak for others but I didn't vote delete because of the current state, I voted because of the subject matter. It fails the relevant notability guideline (WP:MUSIC) and that is coupled with the fact that the information isn't verified against any reliable sources. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 01:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely without good references, and without references there's no evidence of notability, nor can we check NPOV.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is claimed, so a speedy isn't called for. However without any third-party references, although they might in the near future they don't yet qualify as notable. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 18:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Kurt Weber. This AFD is absurd on its face. I'm not even going to go into details of why I believe it's so ridiculous, because it's self-evident. That such things could even be nominated for deletion on this, the greatest encyclopedia of the world, which aims to encompass all subjects notable (and this subject is clearly notable), and that others could embrace the suggestion that it's non-notable, as though marching lock-step behind the nominator, is beyond my ken. Please, we must be independent thinkers here; we must not simply go with the crowd and be taken in by such foolishness. I have nothing further to say about this. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note The above user is currently involved in a debate regarding vote canvassing at AfD and has copied this same statement to multiple active AfDs. [1] --Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2008 (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.