Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jackson Jihad

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 delete - WP:BAND is the guideline to go by here, and as per most of the below, consensus seems to be that this article currently don't pass it. Proto///type 15:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Jackson Jihad

• Delete. Does not meet WP:BAND notability guidelines. — Mike • 03:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Nevertheless, since you are citing notability guidelines, I would like to point out again that the band Has gone on a national concert tour in one large country; Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media; Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (in this case, actually, BOTH). Parsssseltongue 15:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 03:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article was marked for speedy deletion once, I made the neccessary changes (Has gone on a national concert tour in one large country; Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media, etc.), and have satisfied specific criteria as listed in notability guidelines. These nominations are from one Wiki user whom I got into a scuffle over a different article on, and now he's apparently targeting all my contributions. Parsssseltongue 03:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment It's more that I saw a pattern of non-notability in a few of his contributions, and figured they deserved a community review here. But of course, that's not really the case, it's just an excuse. It's really that I'm an evil monster out to chomp on someone's precious baby. Babies, YUM! — Mike • 04:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • response Notability has been met, as listed above, rendering your nomination inappropriate. Parsssseltongue 15:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • response If the community decides that way, or fails to render a consensus vote of delete, then so be it. I still feel the group has notability problems sufficient enough that a community review is warranted. — Mike • 17:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I love the taste of baby in the morning! How do you prepare it? I prefer mine blackened; a good charcoal grilling works well, too. _{If anyone reading this can't tell that it is tounge-in-cheek, then you need to read the article on sarcasm, right away.} —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • response Just because it's sarcasm doesn't make it any more useful in a discussion about deletion of this article, and does not exactly help the user's case that he's acting in good faith. Parsssseltongue 15:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, because courtesy got me so far with Par(s^4)eltongue, didn't it [responses included "I'm offended," "you're petty," "go away, i don't wanna a-talk to you no more" (I paraphrase on that last one)]. And, of course, evidently Par(s^4)eltongue believes sarcasm is in bad faith, but that his use of bile (snake bile?) is entirely in good faith. — Mike • 18:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 678 G-hits. Morgan Wick 03:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Wikipedia's article on the Google test states the minimum number of matches you should see if a term is not made up is Perhaps a few hundred, that search result(s) from Google are highly biased towards popular culture (so a subculture or radio friendly artist may not be reflected, but that does not neccessarily refute notability, does it?). Most importantly, The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an extremely inconsistent tool, which does not measure notability. Since notability is the issue here per the nomination, your reasons for marking this article for deletion are still unclear. Parsssseltongue 15:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Coredesat 04:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure which way to go on this one; if it fails WP:BAND, then it's probably got to go. How notable is 678 G-hits, anyway? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well first Wick is counting total hits, you could also say, they get ~116 unique hits[1] which may be enough to say that this is a gray area. For a good read look at WP:GT. You may find it better to make notablility decisions based on something other than the google test though. -MrFizyx 06:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs | ESP)} 08:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. I had a popular college band too once, and we also played a lot of basements and college bars, but that didn't make us notable. The sources don't really convince me either - college newpaper... Trm3 11:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Nowhere does this article or sources mention "college bars." Basement tours are mentioned to assert claim of artist being a DIY band, a style for which it has become the most prominent representative in its region, therefore fulfilling a notability guideline. Also, though a university-published perodical is a source in the article, so is the Arizona Republic, which is more of the (for lack of a better term) "real newspaper" that you're looking for. Parsssseltongue 15:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete per arguments above. --Xyrael ^T 16:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• keep it seems to me that notability has been met.Antmoney85 18:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC, in that their tours seem confined to just one geographic region of the United States, the labels they have records on do not seem notable, and the publications cited are all based in Phoenix. --Joelmills 02:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I wish someone had made entries such as this one for all the banks in Southern California circa 1965. This band is easily above the rheshold for inclusion IMO. snug 20:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The fact that their popularity is confined to Phoenix should not indicate lack of notability. Pheonix is the fifth largest metropolitan area in the United States and is rapidly growing. Some entertaining population comparisons can be found here. -MrFizyx 19:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops. According to United States metropolitan area I'm plain wrong about that ranking for the metro region. The Pheonix article, however, suggests that it is now likely the fifth largest U.S. city (it may have passed Philly), In any case, it ain't Terre Haute. -MrFizyx 19:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per trm3. Wickethewok 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails to satisfy WP:BAND guidelines. Just doesn't seem to be notable enough for own article.--Auger Martel 08:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, sadly. Having checked the links, I think I might try to find their music as it seems my kinda thang, but the references provided do not convince me that WP:BAND / WP:MUSIC is met. I'd add; notability solely in Phoenix, or for that matter London, Tokyo or New Yawk alone, doesn't necessarily cut it. Colonel Tom 13:18, 19 June 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.