Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bologna ponies

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:55, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bologna ponies

Band vanity, no music released in any 'offline' formats--nixie 03:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• no evidence of notability presented; cutesiness like "pioneers of yadda-yadda of which they are the sole representative" tells me this is a band with nothing real to say about themselves. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. As the article mentions, "The Bologna Ponies are opposed to traditional methods of distrbution," and so on. They should not be punished for holding true to their aesthetic without yet having a comparable level of fame (outside of San Diego, where I live). -- Doubleplus 04:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) Note: user's only contributions thus far are to the article in question and this VfD discussion. Also note that user removed this comment. Android79 04:32, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC) I removed it because it's an ad hominem attack and has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I had no need to create an account up to this point, so my previous "contributions" were not tracked. -- Doubleplus 04:50, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • If you feel it was an ad hominem, which it wasn't, then comment on it, rather than deleting it. I didn't mean to be rude, but is pertinent to this discussion. You may have contributed much more to WP than your user history shows, but this is unverifiable. Android79 05:05, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's ad hominem in that you're attacking the person (or the person's credentials) instead of his argument. The issue here is whether the band should be able to have an entry. Whether or not I've ever contributed to Wiki has nothing at all to do with the answer to this question. -- Doubleplus
    • Look, you're taking this entirely the wrong way. This sort of tagging of new or low-edit users is a common occurrence in VfD discussions. The idea is that, if a user has very few contributions to date, there's a good chance that the user may be arguing in bad faith or engaging in sockpuppetry. I was not implying that you were doing either of those things; I was just pointing something out that will be useful to both the discussion and to the administrators that make the final decision. There's nothing personal about it. Android79 16:38, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • I wasn't taking it personally; I was pointing out what I believed to be a logical fallacy. But thank you for making the effort to clarify what you were saying.
    • Who's saying that credentials are irrelevant? If you were overseeing a local election and a 14-year-old came in to vote, wouldn't you turn him away and say "Sorry, but you're below voting age"? If someone walked in and couldn't show evidence that he actually lived in the municipality whose next leaders he wanted to help choose, wouldn't you turn him away? One of the biggest myths of VfD is that, just for showing up, any random editor gets an equal vote -- even if they show no signs that they've been around long enough to understand Wikipedia's standards, or even any sign that they give a damn about Wikipedia's standards. If you don't think that's fair, then let us manage your band. It doesn't matter that we have no experience, aren't familiar with your music, and may in fact only want to sabotage you -- we showed up, and no other "credentials" should be relevant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • What do you mean by "your band"? I don't have a band. I've been following the Ponies for a couple of years now and I decided to post a stub for others in their sizable fan base to expand on. And using your own logic, you shouldn't be taking part in this decision anyway. You don't live in SD, and you don't follow free-form jazz/rock acts (as far as I know), so how can you say that this band isn't notable enough in either of those regards to merit an entry? The "sole representative" line that's being beaten about is just a conceit on my part and can easily be edited. -- Doubleplus 17:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Here's a hint for you: A Wikipedia article is not a right. The standard is not "The band gets an article unless someone shows they shouldn't", it's "The band doesn't get an article unless someone shows that they should." Claiming that I don't have the knowledge to dispute the evidence presented for their notability is moot until such evidence is presented. And if you don't want to play by those rules, then go elsewhere. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:44, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails to meet the notability and music guidelines. Android79 04:32, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, we (Bologna Ponies) use a creative commons license (non-commercial, no mixing, else copying ok) and naturally are not going to satisfy any of the traditional notions of notability. -- BologniumNitrate aka Chuck 21:19:20, Mar 6, 2005 (PDT) This is 168.253.132.237's only edit.
  • This is not my only edit, I simply do not feel the need to maintain a vanity account on wiki and make my edits as such. I think the real purpose to which user accounts appears to be turned is to establish a criteria for rejecting contributions, which is absurd, and potentially marginalizing. "He's not one of us, just delete him, folks. Move along." Wikipedia has real fears, I recognize that and have seen some of the abuses of wikipedia, but most of the real abuses don't revolve around one-time edits. In addition, you are basing your arguments on a position of ignorance claiming we don't deserve an entry because you've never heard of us. As I and Doubleplus have shown elsewhere, Bologna_ponies do have contacts, affiliations, and influences in the local music community. BologniumNitrate
  • Even with the no commercial ethos, your groups hasn't toured, been featured in the media or hosted by any arts institutions, which may have pushed you over the line for notability--nixie 06:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It is only more difficult for a Creative Commons-licensed band to show notability; it is not (as you seem to be implying) impossible-and-therefore-irrelevant. Look at Brad Sucks, whose music is all CC-licensed; his music has been licensed for use by TV shows and for commercials. That's evidence of notability. Merely saying "CC-licensing means you can never show evidence of notability and therefore Wikipedia should just waive that entirely for us" is a false statement followed by an unreasonable interpretation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, obvious band vanity. Megan1967 05:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability. Jeltz talk 10:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Radiant! 11:13, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bands with unorthodox distribution can get articles, but not if nobody pays any real attention to them. If they aren't touring (to significant audiences on an at least national basis), and it is impossible to verify that anyone is actually listening to them, then they shouldn't get an article. Average Earthman 12:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, falling outside the norm shouldn't preclude an artist from existence. User:Marstokyo\Marstokyo Note: this is Marstokyo's only edit.
  • "Existing" and "having a Wikipedia article" aren't the same thing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia doesn't include every artist which exists, only those which can prove a certain degree of public recognition or other importance. Kappa 13:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• From the above cited Music/Notability Guidelines: "These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when decided whether or not to keep an article that is on votes for deletion." and "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city." and "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable." The last applies since Monk played in the past with Tristeza, which is a much more pop/profit minded band that you can "verify" if you like. -- Doubleplus
  • Well, the guidelines exist for a reason; they're generally applied equally to all musician VfDs that come up. As for the guidelines themselves: emerging post-indie San Diego improv jazz/rock sound, of which the band remains the sole representative does not exactly jive with calling the scene/sound notable, as you yourself describe it as emerging and the band being its lone representative. As for was once a part of [...] a band that is otherwise extremely notable, I'm not sure if Tristeza would qualify as extremely notable. Android79 16:50, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • The use of the term 'extremely notable' would appear to disqualify Tristeza completely (particularly since nobody has bothered to write an article for them yet). I mean, extremely notable would be a band such as, say, Joy Division, hence New Order and Monaco (band) would qualify for articles even if they didn't on their own (off the top of my head example). Also, you said 'played with' not 'was a member of'. Average Earthman 17:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't suppose The Robot Ate Me would qualify as extremely notable, would it? Emperor Meng has a part in the album reviewed in that article. They also have a page on wikipedia. BologniumNitrate
• Delete bandity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. They also have a grand total of 14 google hits. If they really were important to their local scene, they'd have more. DaveTheRed 04:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. BTfromLA 06:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One of the criteria under the WikiMusic guidelines is completing a tour of a large or medium size nation. As yet, this band has not done this. As well, if it was using a revolutionary distribution system and achieving some level of success, this would attract publicity in itself and establish notability. As yet, we don't have verifiabilty or notability established. Capitalistroadster 09:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Band must have more than local following or be notable in some other way to be encyclopedic. Demi 19:25, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• Delete without the faintest evidence anyone else cares - David Gerard 11:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - more band vanity cruft. Fawcett5 02:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability presented. Gamaliel 02:36, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, band vanity. If you've got to create your own entry, you're probably not notable. Dpark 02:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.