Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angry Aryans (2nd)

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 of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angry Aryans

• Previous AfD

Speedy deleted, restored after discussion at deletion review. [1] Does not claim notability per guidelines for inclusion of bands. Delete unless evidence to the contrary placed in article. brenneman^{L} 06:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - notable as White Power band can be. Luka Jačov 09:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If Resistance Records are notable, so are these guys, by virtue of having released two albums (Racially Motivated Violence and Too White For You) on Resistance. No vote as I'd personally rather read about every pokemon that ever existed. Jcuk 11:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Not even listed in Resistance Records. Label may be indie but is certainly not notable. Mystache 13:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • • Comment actually they are listed. Fourth from the top in the list of groups. The name was previously a redlink to Angry Aryans (band) Jcuk 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per discussion on DRV, simply being used as one of a number of examples in articles about white power bands isn't enough for me.-Polotet 16:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per DRV discussion; me neither. People keep saying that their teaming with Resistance Records is prima facie notable, but I have yet to see evidence that RR is in fact "one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)". The Angry Aryans article itself makes no claim of notability, the two albums cited have zero distribution on Amazon.com, and they're not even in the (nine page deep) MP3 listening list on the Resistance website. RGTraynor 16:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • • Comment That must be a different Angry Aryans listed three times on the first page of the nine page MP3 listening list then. http://www.resistance.com/audio/listen_new.htm ;-)Jcuk 19:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • My bad, I see that now. RGTraynor 19:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
        • NP mistakes happen. Personally I'd rather this racist BS group was wiped out of existance, but hey.... Jcuk 19:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Luka Jacov. --estavisti 19:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Hello. --GTubio 20:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --serbiana - talk 22:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep (read my multiple comments on DRV). I'm busy rewriting some bios though, and I really don't care about some white power band. Why didn't someone just tell me it was three sentences? Kotepho 22:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'd encourage everyone to read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion. This isn't a vote, and there is a very good chance that the closing admin will ignore recomendations that fail to provide supporting rational. Further to that, rational that fail to provide supporting evidence may also be disregarded at the admin's discretion. - brenneman^{L} 00:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I didn't find this band on resistance records, and this disrupts the credibility of the information. Thetruthbelow 01:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep barely passes WP:MUSIC as they've released two albums on a notable label, and is a prominent representative of a notable style. --Eivind^t@c 03:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC, as I disagree that the label is notable (or discerning, which is really what we should be concerned with). Jkelly 04:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with redirect to Resistance Records. As per the deletion policy, this should not yet be considered for deletion, let alone up for its second AfD, until a merge has been attempted by those who believe the content to be too trivial to merit a separate article. I see absolutely no good reason to remove verifiable information from Wikipedia in this case. --Tony Sidaway 00:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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.