Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glacial Ghost

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. Mackensen (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glacial Ghost

Glacial Ghost (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I just don't know what to make of this article. It hurts my head to try to read. I can't even put my finger on what it is to find an appropriate standard for it to meet. WP:MUSIC would probably be it. There are no sources given at all for this article even though the author said s/he'd provide some on its talk page a month ago. Nonsense article on a non-notable band, maybe? Metros232 23:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, self-promotional rubbish. Giveaway phrases include multiple uses of "speculated", "rumoured", "enigmatic", "supposedly", "unsubstantiated", "conflicting stories" Demiurge 00:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, I barely understand what this article is supposed to be about. — The Great Llama^moo? 00:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I'm sorry if you feel that this article is not up to snuff. I've spent a good deal of time researching and documenting things about this group who I saw perform here in Berlin in 2004. I don't really know them personally, but I've contacted them since I started trying to write material for this article and asked them questions. Their actual name is a drawing and so it's very hard to search for information on them online, but I've tried. A lot of the information is from zines interviews I've read which are not published on the internet. I'm also very new to wikipedia and I'm not on the computer as much as a lot of you are so I can only devote a certain amount of time to learning how to format and footnote things, but I tried to footnote some things from the portion of information which came from the Artists Space website. Artists Space is surely a reputable source as it's been an important non-profit art space in New York City since the 1970s. I will work more on this article to try and make it more neutral, if that is the problem. I am just trying to make it comprehensive and accurate. I can heavily edit it, or you can edit it if you do the correct research, but I feel like you are jumping to conclusions without actually knowing anything at all about the subject matter, or even about experimental music, noise, and contemporary project based-art. For subjects which do not have a lot of internet information about them, I feel like wikipedia is a great resource. If this page is deleted, you're creating a catch 22. I've put a lot of my own time and energy into this article because I think that this group warrants it. I know that there are thousands of people who have seen this group perform or own their albums or have read their writings who have felt affected and inspired the same way that I did.

I also understand that part of what makes wikipedia so great is that it is heavily edited, ending up with entries that are as accurate as possible. So, I'm not offended that this be proposed for deletion even though I've worked hard on it thus far and even though I know that a lot of editors like to rack up "Number of deletions" on their profile pages. Please try to do some more research of your own before discrediting mine, and I'll attempt to get more references together and properly footnote them. I can remove things which seem too much like speculation and whittle it down to something more digestible. Hopefully you'll allow me this. Thanks! - Anette

• Delete Seems pretty clear failure of WP:MUSIC. Amusing though (secret monastry cave only accessible to the inner circle etc) Bwithh 02:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC, and the editor contactng the group, may or may not be original research depending on what was being asked and then added to the article. -- Whpq 16:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per whpq
• keep i've been trying to understand the criteria for WP:music and especially the touring requirement. this band has gone on several full u.s. tours (by googling "glacial ghost" tour, on the first page alone there were listings for shows in richmond, reno, st louis and seattle {to support Calvin Johnson}) as well as international tours. they have been a part of the new england/providence/new york experimental/noise/folk scenes for years now, playing with lightning bolt, Tiny Hawks, Black Dice, No Neck Blues Band, Wooden Wand and the Vanishing Voice and a ton of others. the problem is they are hard to talk about because their name is a drawing, and they change their subtitle name with every project. and they do not neatly fit into the usual definition of band. their work extends beyond music to artwork, gallery shows, videos, books, etc. i agree that this article needs some editing and sourcing, but i think that's all. it is still possible for bands to function and be "notable" without a serious internet presence, as well as maintaining a vehemently diy work ethic. booking agents, mass media coverage, i see how these things are simple guages of tour "signifigance", but i would argue that they cannot be the only factors. and i absolutely see how this becomes an issue in the context of wikipedia, and that verifiability is the crux of it all, and what makes this place what it is. i guess that's my say in this.Swc 16:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC) — Swc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete per Demiurge. WMMartin 18:28, 28 November 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.