Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain Trauma

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. Cbrown1023 00:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brain Trauma

Brain Trauma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

"The group prides itself in remaining an underground group, never wishing to break through to mainstream media or radio". Then they don't need to have a Wikipedia article, on top of failing WP:BAND Daniel Case 05:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Brain Trauma wants to remain underground to maintain there artistic integrity. That has nothing to do with "failing". They have been featured in two separate articles in The Charleston Gazette, which is southern and western West Virginia's largest circulated newspaper. They have a very large fan base. They were linked to from articles involving Horrorcore and R Budd Dwyer and didn't have an article to point the references to. I don't see why the group shouldn't have an article. -Joshua Kyle — Kasketkyle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note that the above post was made by a user who seems to be in the band... MER-C 06:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh good. I love it when this happens. Wavy G 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails to assert notability. —ShadowHalo 06:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn notable, fails WP:MUSIC.--Dakota 06:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Band does not appear to meet the requirement of multiple independent coverage in WP:BAND. Serpent's Choice 07:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Please also note that Kasketkyle (talk · contribs) deleted the contents of this AfD discussion, replacing it in its entirety with the text blockquoted below:

Go set on your pedestal and feel important because you waist your life deciding what is and isn't important for people to know. No one gives a shit about what college you went to or what kind of degree you have. You aren't better at deciding what is and isn't important for wikipedia visitors. the reasoning behind this is... If something has a "cult" following, it s quite possible that none of the fans know about wikipedia, hence a member of the group would be the only person viable for the job of creating the article. Although yes this does interfere with the neutrality, if no one else is available to create the article then the band shouldn't be deleted for simply creating the article as long as the article is used as a "history of the band" rather than "hey buy this bands next cd!". The notability of the band in question might be under suspicion, but, the band does have a very large underground following, and has shared the stage with such notable acts as Tech N9ne, Project Deadman, ZugIzland, Wolfpac, and others. Also, the Charleston gazette (wv's highest circulated newspaper) has ran articles involving brain trauma, twice. if that doesn't qualify as reasoning to keep the article up, i could really give a shit, honestly, at least I'm not someone who sits around all day judging other peoples creativity.


  • please note that my deletion of everything was accidental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasketkyle (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, despite the soapbox rant above, no evidence from WP:RS (i.e., multiple, non-trivial references) that band meets WP:MUSIC. --Kinu t/c 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Upgrading my vote to Strong delete after the angry rants above. First, they used profanity. Second, the writer at first misunderstands the issue, then does but basically without intending to makes the case for deletion. If the band has a small enough fan base that none of them are likely to have heard about Wikipedia, then it's a safe bet they're not notable. Oh, OK, they aren't notable by our (very objective) standards, but they have "a very large underground following". WP:BAND says nothing about the size of a band's fan base justifying inclusion ... after all, Brain Trauma isn't the first band to make that claim (Nor does saying "they've shared the stage with notable bands" cut it, either). And the Gazette coverage, as other users reported, doesn't rise above the trivial level.

No, that doesn't qualify as reasoning to keep the article up. As linked above, we have our own very clear standards on that.

I'm genuinely sorry if this is how you discovered we have standards here (and, BTW, comparing the standards for bands with the standards for neologisms, most of which belong on Wiktionary if they're truly notable, is apples and oranges in the metaphorical sense.

But really, I get very annoyed when someone creates an article about a band or something else that talks about how "underground" and "outside" whatever the subject is, then complains when the article gets nominated for deletion on the grounds that people won't know about whatever it is without a Wikipedia article. You can't have it both ways. Wikipedia is not Google, it is not the be-all and end-all of universal knowledge however much it may seem to be to younger readers. If they want their favorite band to be the subject of a Wikipedia article, I would suggest to the Trauma Victimz that they focus their energies on getting more attention on the band (but uh-oh ... that would make them commercial and thus less cool). Daniel Case 16:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

all i have to say is who ever deleted this is a JUGGAHO! whoop whoop! --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.231.168 (talk • contribs)

Okay, so slang terms are allowed to be on wikipedia, but an article about Brain Trauma is not. These guys are awsome and deserve a break, just because some person wants to discriminate against Brain Trauma for their beliefs and wishes does not mean that the article or anything pertaining to Brain Trauma should not be on wikipedia. Brian Trauma is not slang, they are a group of people who produce good music and an article should be allowed on this site, they have the Freedom of Speech just like the rest of us. Michelle -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.149.49 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete When it comes to music and books, my history proves I lean towards inclusionist-views, however we DO have a guideline, WP:MUSIC, that all bands and artists articles need to meet. They may be a great band and if they had some MP3s of their music I'd be more than happy to listen to them, but for wikipedia...they don't 'make the cut'. That is NOT saying anything about their music, fans, band members, or act nor does that somehow make them less of a group. It simple means that certain guildlines were set by the wikipedia editors as to what the 'cut off' line was for bands. Just like Billboard's top 100 qualifications to get on their list, wikipedia has qualifications that need to be meet to have an article. On a side note: Freedom of Speech does not apply to Wikipedia or the Internet. Most servers on the 'net are privately owned and that means the owners can censor anything you post on their server. I'd be all for this article...IF they could be proven to meet WP:MUSIC and have at least three (multiple) Independent, Reliable, Reputable, Non-trivial, Third-Party sources. Articles about the band (and nothing else but the band) by major magazines, newspapers, or peer-reviewed journals. --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I can confirm that the Charleston Gazette appears to have interviewed the band. But a single article doesn't meet the "multiple" portion of the mutliple covergae independent of the subject. I'm open to a keep if more reliable sources can be found. -- Whpq 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mer-C. (I remain underground to maintain my scientific integrity), Edison 19:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete --Adam Riley Talk 19:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete CSD A7 - no assertion of notability. Let's help this act maintain their "underground" status and delete the article from Wikipedia. B.Wind 18:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Whatever, I don't give a shit anymore. I would like to point out though, that my "rants" above weren't in the least bit angry. "Profanity" is nothing more than a word used for something, like the word DOG means a four legged animal that barks, FUCK is the word used to describe the physical act of love. This isn't profanity. In the above "rant" my usage of the word "SHIT" was not used literally, as in it was not used to describe excrement, therefore it is NOT profanity. You would think someone with a masters degree in English would notice something like that. But, I'm not the one in here trying to act like he's smarter than anyone else, I know my IQ, I know my knowledge, I don't have to get on a computer and convince people Ive never met of my superior intellect by making smart ass quips about something a band member posted as an article on wikipedia. But, you have won, for the time being. Some day soon, we will have the three articles, and the notability, and all that super important stuff. And I'll even have a fan post the article for us so it isn't a conflict of interest. Goodbye for now.
The S-word is profanity in any context. Have you ever tried out that argument offline? I didn't think so. We have a rule against this. Daniel Case 20:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

yes, I have tried out this argument offline, and the only time I have lost the argument is when it is with some bible thumping redneck or someone who already thinks that they are "superior". SHIT is not a profanity, the link you posted about SHIT is further backing that it isn't a profanity in certain contexts. But, seeing as you already have it in your head that you are "superior" to my ignorance, don't worry about it. You're too hard headed for your own good, whatever you think is right will be right regardless of any argument I provide.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasketkyle (talk • contribs)

And the article is in the profanity category. We have rules about not using foul language online here; not only is it part of being civil, it's inarguably profane in this or almost any context and you're more or less going into logical contortions trying to convince me that yellow stuff running down my leg is rain. You're clearly too smart for that.

Whatever. I didn't assert any superiority whatever you think I did; I just laid out the reasons this article doesn't meet our standards for inclusion at this point. This whole argument is an irrelevant side issue. Daniel Case 04:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • DO NOT DELETE As a member of the US military, and yes a Brain Trauma fan, I would like to say that your want to delete this article from this site is deplorable. You call yourself a "free" encyclopedia, yet you are by no means an encyclopedia. A true one would cover all subjects, great and small. Where would some of the greatest musician be today had it not been for humble beginnings. This group may not be as large as some, but they are still just as notable. All groups must first crawl before they run. Look at Metallica... once upon a time they too felt it unneeded to play to a large fan base, but as they grew as a group so to did their fans grow in numbers. Many have started with just a handful of faithful listeners, only to later become musical entities. Take for example The Greatful Dead. They began as a garage band of hippies who simple wanted to smoke pot and play music. Now today they are a universally recognized supergroup of their time. So to conclude I feel that to leave out this group would be to say that to succeed you have to start at the top. ((rskennedy71@aol.com)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.205.86.63 (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Comment (edit conflict) There are rule for wikipedia. This band does not pass WP:MUSIC, which outlines if a band or artist's article should be kept or removed. As a person in the military I know you understand what it means to have rules to be followed. If you need a certain security clearance to get into a certain area of a military base, then you don't get to go there if you do not have the clearance. Wikipedia is the same. We have a 'standard' and this band does not meet it...yet. Doesn't mean they will not in the future. About the Metallica and Grateful Dead reference...Wikipeida is not a crystal ball and will not keep an article based on 'maybe they will be famous in the future'. Even the most notable Rock singer ever, Elvis Presley, started off singing at state fairs and was not notable until his record deal. Had we had wikipedia back then and someone made an article on him before he would meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines, the article would be deleted. Same with metallica and the Greatful Dead. Notability must be verifiable NOW, not based on some possible future. As for success, I guess that is up to how you define it. Notability? Well if they do not meet WP:MUSIC then I guess they do not meet wikipedia's standards for notability. Would you be upset with the Billboard Hot 100 if they didn't place the band in their system? No? Why? Because they do not meet Billboard's standards...yet. Again, this is not an attack on the band, the fans, nor their music. This is a discussion on if the band meets Wikipedias standards... They don't... yet. When they do, feel free to provide sources for this, cite the hell out of it, and recreate the article. --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
you are by no means an encyclopedia. A true one would cover all subjects, great and small.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Daniel Case 20:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so the Charleston Gazette does not go above your "trivial references" as one of you put it. I understand that you have guidelines; the guidelines it seems are suited for artists that are well known and well published. At least that is how I understand the guidelines; you make it near impossible for new artists to get "public” whether they are underground or not Freedom of speech does not apply here, that seems asinine to me but it is your site and you can do what ever you want. However, Milf, FOAD, and other slang that people just have to know are so very important. As for the comment “Wikipedia is not Google, it is not the be-all and end-all of universal knowledge however much it may seem to be to younger readers.” You are right Wikipedia is not the “be-all, end-all,” but the assumption that younger readers believe that your site is the “be-all and end-all” of Universal knowledge is a bit much. What does the age of the readers or fans have to do with anything? In addition, the comment “I would suggest to the Trauma Victimz that they focus their energies on getting more attention on the band (but uh-oh ... that would make them commercial and thus less cool).” How do you know that they have not been, and it is not a matter of being cool, it is a matter of getting out there. You have made the assumption that Brain Trauma’s fans are a bunch of “kids” therefore you people must be old geezers, this follows with the assumptions that you have made. Some of you may not have been as critical as the others but your standards seem to high for new artists to get anywhere, you have to start somewhere. Webster’s definition of Underground: produced or published outside the establishment especially by the avant-garde. 70.105.149.49 16:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Michelle

What does the age of the readers or fans have to do with anything?

Just that most deletion debates over bands that follow the same pattern as this (and there have been many) often seem to involve younger editors who have a very different understanding of what Wikipedia should be than the community that's been here and shaped it over the past several years.

I'm glad you posted this because I'm going to pull some things out that I want to direct your attention to further your understanding of why this article will almost certainly be deleted.

...you make it near impossible for new artists to get "public” whether they are underground or not...

...it is not a matter of being cool, it is a matter of getting out there...

...your standards seem to high for new artists to get anywhere, you have to start somewhere...

Would you not agree, then, that rereading your statements above that you believe the purpose of this Wikipedia article about Brain Trauma is to promote the band? Or if you don't, that then a reasonable person could make that assumption? Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle for anyone. Not Brain Trauma, not the many penny-stock companies whose pr departments put up press releases here and think we won't notice, not the kids who want the world to know how cool they are or what dorks some other kid is. We delete all those articles too.

The obvious assumption from your comments above is that, if there is no Wikipedia article about the band, no one will know about them. Again, that's not Wikipedia's purpose. That might be MySpace's purpose; I can't speak for them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia on which you can (hopefully) learn basic information about a lot of things. But we merely reflect the world, we write articles about what the world has taken note of. We reflect rather than report.

I checked out our articles on MILF and FOAD since you brought them up. Guess what? MILF is on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia, and FOAD is in a glossary of Internet slang terms. Which is where they both belong. Daniel Case 20:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The same rules would apply if it were the Charleston Daily Mail, the Huntington Herald-Dispatch, the Lexington Courier-Journal, or the Toledo Blade. First, if the interview is reported in only one local newspaper (as opposed to the Washington Post or New York Times, which are national in reach), it still wouldn't contribute much in terms of meeting WP:BIO any more than all those Herald-Dispatch articles on the band Oney (a Huntington band that had only local popularity, it seemed) a decade-plus ago. Second of all, the article is not sourced, namely that it doesn't have a single specific citation to a link or literature from a third person that supports the contention (granted, the Charleston Gazette is mentioned, but in what issue - and what's the name of the article - does it have an online link? If not, perhaps it can be found offline, but only if the issue date were given). So if we take away the unsourced assertions, we are left with.... nothing. That's a major reason for the "delete" recommendations. Well, that and no references from outside West Virginia could be found in my short search for Brain Trauma the band. B.Wind 19:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Michelle, the thing is the band must have been reported on by multiple, independent, reputable, reliable, non-trivial, third-party sources. The articles on the band have to be about the band and nothing else (no coverage on any other bands or just a mention of the band being part of a concert). Look at WP:MUSIC. We have a MUCH lower standard than a hardcover encyclopedia, but we still have standards or every garageband would be able to have an article. The other reason is having standards for bands and artists means they have to meet a certain level of notability and fame. This makes it easier for people who are not familiar with the band to add information to the article because any reasonable adult who is not a specialist in the music industry would be able to find information and post it about the band. You have a certain standard for the people you would date or let into your home. Does that mean your standards are bogus or wrong? --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:36, 14 December 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.