Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SOJA - Soldiers of Jah Army

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. —Cleared as filed. 00:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SOJA - Soldiers of Jah Army

another NN band that doesn't meet WP:MUSIC --Bachrach44 03:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I don't know what the nominator is talking about, there are 104 google hits for the string "soldiers of jah's army" Endomion 03:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Correction - My initial search string was in error, but this is even better, there are 42,000 hits for "soldiers of jah army" Endomion 18:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm talking about the criteria that wikipedia has set forth for which bands are considered notable enough to get wiki pages, and which aren't. These guidelines are published at WP:MUSIC, and if you click on the link you'll see exactly what they are. Suffice it to say that 104 google hits does not meet these criteria, and SOJA is not even close to meeting the criteria. (not to mention that only 14 of those hits show up, meaning there are a lot of duplicates). -- Bachrach44 03:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No doubt - band article inclusion should not solely be based on Google hits. PJM 12:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The pre-programmed one-hit wonder bread Britney crap they play on the FM dial these days is far less notable than this reggae band, but WP is set up to squash the reggae band. Go figure. Endomion 15:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point, but to say Wiki is set up to "squash" anything just seems sophomoric. It's only a matter of following WP:NMG...which you can certainly dispute. If you feel strongly about this article being kept, you should go on to make a better case for it. PJM 15:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, nn band. --Thephotoman 05:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per A7. Cobra 09:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Though the article ignores wikipedia:NPOV and is non-encyclopedic, it does make assertions of notability and should not be speedied. The band is all over Google, but has an empty listing at allmusic.com. Based on what I find, they don't satisfy WP:NMG. PJM 12:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep their Google hits are 41,900 [1]

And from the article itself:

It received nominations for Album of the Year and Song of the Year (Nuclear Bomb) at the 2001 D.C. Reggae Awards and has now been nominated for Recording of the Year at the 2002 Wammies (Washington Area Music Association) awards show. --Revolución (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The actual number of unique Google hits is only 383. All the rest are "entries very similar to the 383 already displayed." Denni ☯ 05:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep. why not let readers set their own notability threshold? -- Marvin147 09:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The readers can set their own notability threshold, but we must all remember that Wikipedia is not infinite and every subject is not verifiable, so the editors must be held to a higher standard. We can verify most of the information in George Washington, but if my buddy Doug starts an article about himself, most of that stuff is unverifiable. If every person in the world decided to start making articles about themselves and other people came in and vandalized it, how would vandal-fighters know what is right and what is wrong? Furthermore, how could we manage such an influx of traffic? There are good reasons for notability requirements, although it would be nice to have a grand database of everyone in the world, but the trouble is, nobody could possibly verify any of the information, nor do we have the room for it right now. JHMM13 (T | C) 10:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:WINI has no more to do with this than notability. There are a finite number of people on the planet, and in recorded history, whose information is verifiable. You play a dangerous game of censorship if you delete. Keep this article if the info is verifiable --Marvin147 10:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, WP:WINI does have something to do with this, as I have stated above. We cannot verify everything that everyone has done, and I'd like to know where you get your information, because I don't think we've even got the exact number of people on the planet down, much less encyclopedic information about all of them. Furthermore, if something is changed on their article, how could we possibly know if it's true or false? There is censorship here, but Wikipedia is not a forum for ultimate free speech. We arrive at consensuses for guidelines and policies based on the limitations we have. Unfortunately, for the reasons I have stated above (none of which you addressed in your response), we simply cannot put everything into Wikipedia. Verifiability and quantity are two of the important things to keep in mind here. JHMM13 (T | C) 12:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. These guys show up on Allmusic.com, and 42,200 Google hits. They don't seem to meet too many of the WP:MUSIC guidelines, but check this fan site out. They seem to be pretty notable in the reggae community, even if not for a major record label. I suggest they be kept considering all of the above. I'm not going to be too adament about this keep, but I think they are just notable enough to warrant inclusion. JHMM13 (T | C) 10:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, currently no information is provided to suggest that this band meets WP:MUSIC. Stifle 00:17, 4 January 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.