Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur And Company

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 --JForget 01:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur And Company

Arthur And Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Hoax, not actually signed to Columbia Records. Once you remove that, they're another non-notable band. Enoktalk 03:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm a member of the band, we're legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codyrhodescaw (talk • contribs) 03:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, No assertion of notability. --Mark (Mschel) 03:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Merely being signed to a major label does not pass WP:MUSIC; releasing two albums on a major label is necessary. --Dhartung | Talk 03:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As A fan of their music, and they have released 3 albums on Columbia records, I dont think its right to delete them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.132.44 (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Get ahold of Columbia if you wish, or try and contact me through my talk page if you want proper information, I assure you we're legit and simply ask what you would like for proof with legal properties and wikipedia guidelines of course 71.202.132.44 (talk) codyrhodescaw
  • I have also heard their music and I think it is one of the best on the local scene right now. They come from Sonoma and have played many shows for the local kids their as well. Please do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.179.168 (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Question to the Nominator, where is your evidence to back up your claim that they aren't actually signed to Columbia?  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 06:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The burden of proof lies on the article editors, not the nominator. Punkmorten (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    • But if you do want proof, there's no mention of this band on Columbia Records' webpage, and a Google Search for "+"arthur and company" +"columbia records"" just gets this AfD and a private MySpace page, neither of which are reliable sources. This is pretty obviously a prank. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, joke or hoax. Punkmorten (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. As mentioned, doesn't appear on either the Columbia or Sony BMG artist lists. The article itself notes that they had a "lack of record company support" - when the article states it for me, I won't disagree. Duncan1800 (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

they played The Shop last weekend here in town, and I saw them at The Fillmore last month 21:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Ryan T. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.102.103.18 (talk)

and in all fairness, a simple google search is unreliable unless the band has a website (they don't), and if they have lack of support from columbia, why would they be on the website? 21:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Ryan T. (again) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.102.103.18 (talk)

Funny, they're claimed to be signed with Columbia Records, and now they don't have any support from the label? Which one is it? Secondly, if they had played a concert at a historic venue like The Fillmore, there probably would've would've been a couple websites or newspaper articles in the Bay Area that covered or even mentioned the performance. And if they supposedly had performed at the places you're claiming and actually had three records released by Columbia, there would've been a lot of coverage of this band that would've been available online and searchable through Google. And yet a Google search of the band gets me absolutely nothing. You and your friends need to get a better hobby than posting some really weak hoaxes on Wikipedia. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Of course we ask our information not be released online without our consent due to file sharing and what not, so we keep our stuff off the internet, thats why we havent created a webpage.Codyrhodescaw (talk)! codyrhodescaw —Preceding comment was added at 23:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You asked Sony if they would be kind enough not to make money by selling the releases in their online store? That sounds like a reasonable request that they would agree to. You don't need to know a thing about the record industry to know that bands have no say whatsoever in that. --neonwhite user page talk 00:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

oh and we havent played the Fillmore, I dont know who it was who posted that, but we played The Pheonix, The Fillmore, no. So whoever said that is providing false information 23:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)~ codyrhodescaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codyrhodescaw (talk • contribs)

You missed my point, it's not about whether you have a website or not. If this band has done what all of your are claiming (have three records released by a major record label, played at big Bay Area music venues whether it be the Fillmore or the Phoenix Theater), then other newspapers, magazines and websites would've written articles about and had other coverage about this band. Yet I cannot find one single shred of coverage of this supposed band anywhere. As far as I can tell, all of you are trying (and failing) to pull a pretty poorly-done prank on this site. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:29, 21 May 2008 (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.