Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/18 Speed Tranny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Jaranda wat's sup 05:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 18 Speed Tranny

Prod was removed by sole author, so I'll list it here. No real opinion, although the article sounds like it was written by a member of the band (especially the "influences" section), the band does seem to be somewhat notable. tmopkisn tlka 21:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

From the page author - The influence part has been modified, and if you do a google or yahoo search you will see that the band is notable.

Procedural note: Nominator, please list specific reasons under Wikipedia:Deletion policy under which this is eligible for deletion. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • From a Google search (which, FYI, brings up 26,000+ hits, but only 262 unique hits), they might or might not be somewhat (i.e. only slightly, but sufficiently for WP) notable. However, as it stands, the article asserts absolutely no notability at all. Thus, unless an article expansion occurs that shows me if/why these guys are actually significant, I have no choice but to vote speedy delete. -- Kicking222 22:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I've just spent a while trawling through some of the Ghits. Most are related to either Chicago sites, or free music sites. I even searched at ASCAP [1] and BMI [2] where they weren't listed. Besides gigs in Illinois, they played a festival in Wisconsin this week! They've even got a listing as an "Irish" band on an Irish site. They do appear on a complilation album. They do deserve full marks for getting the promo out. --Richhoncho 22:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment WP:BAND doesn't mention Google hits as a criterion for notability. Or at all. --DaveG12345 03:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • From the pages author - If it's the agenda of this website to present only things that everyone is already familiar with than what's the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stymets (talk • contribs)
    • I think you'd be able to make a better case if you hadn't gone around calling people dorks, and changing their comments. tmopkisn tlka 01:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • From the pages author - A case is a case regardless of my immaturity, besides I think Macaroni is a dork, just like he thinks the bands name is "crap" I'm entitled to my opinion. STYMETS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stymets (talk • contribs)
  • Strong delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Websters defines the word encyclopedia as a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. It does not say anything about being elitist or relevance of subject matter, and I would imagine that it would state that the complete opposite should be the case for an encylopedia that is supposed to be freely available and created by the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stymets (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per WP:VSCA. Close to a speedy, but I think it just about asserts notability. Stifle (talk) 18:09, 11 July 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.