Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burning Point

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 Keep band and album article, No consensus for the band member article. Further discussion is encouraged about merging the member's article but AFD is not the place unless deletion is an option. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burning Point

Burning Point (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WP:NOTE No assertion of notability. I am also nominating the following related pages:

Jukka Jokikokko (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Burned Down the Enemy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

--Sigma 7 04:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I´m a member of the Burning Point band and writing pure fact -jj- 05:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete All, no notability asserted. Jujokiko, please note you can change our minds. Read up on this article, and also pay special attention to WP:MUSIC as this applies to a band - this is what we're looking for. That it's the truth is a start, and that it's evidently verifiable is a plus, but we're not looking for mere truth, we're looking for notability. If you can follow through with that, I for one will happily change my mind. --Dennisthe2 09:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Burning Point and Burned Down the Enemy per WP:MUSIC and redirect Jukka Jokikokko to Burning Point. The band has released three albums through notable labels; Limb Music, SPV GmbH (list), Soundholic and Metal Heaven. One band member is in Dolorian and an ex-member in Catamenia. [1] That's two of the criteria on WP:MUSIC and more notability can probably be found from the 134,000 Google hits. Prolog 11:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep – two albums on SPV (meets WP:MUSIC) and plenty of web notability (see links I added to article). Allmusic is also a good guide to notability (although not nailed on, admittedly). Bubba hotep 12:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Also considered notable enough for entries in both Italian and Polish Wikipedias. Sorry, forgot to mention that. Bubba hotep 23:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I should been read first articles about Dennisthe2 mentioned but I was little to eager when I noticed Burning Point article in wikipedia. I immediately noticed that there were missing information (one member missing and discography). My meaning was noble and I just add correct facts. I Did that too in my "personal" Article, I didn´t write autograph, just time of birth, place of birth and reason, why I was already mentioned in wikipedia Burning Point article (bassist, and I add studio engineer) This is already say in above, it should be easy to check links (or google) and noticed notability of Burning Point. I don say anything more about notability of me, that I have been bassist, co producer or studio engineer in several records (released world wide) and I hope, that you evaluate my notability by facts, google and links what I mentioned and do your decision. Thats fine and I´m happy what ever decision are, I´m humble person. Oh, and if decision is keep, I hope, that someone add Burning Point article formal members of band: Jukka Kyrö (1999-2005) Guitar and Toni "Jöpe" Kansanoja (1999-2006) bass -jj- 21:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Could it be possible that the article be kept until a certain deadline for more information to be added? If the article is better after that deadline, the article shall be kept. But if the article is still as mediocre, then it should be deleted... What do you other people think? --Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • See my edits!) 17:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • AFD debates are known to be relisted in order to get a better discussion - there are other reasons available as well. There's a few other ways of doing it as well - you could check with the Wikipedia:Help Desk for alternate methods. --Sigma 7 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The AfD process is to decide whether an article's subject is notable enough to be kept, not whether it is mediocre enough to be deleted. We are here to continuously expand and improve articles, not to delete them because they are stubs. If that was the case, Wikipedia would be empty. There is no time limit on improving a notable article. Bubba hotep 19:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • To augment, I'd also suggest keeping a "backup" copy in your userspace somewhere. We're certainly not prejudiced against deletion, but it should be improved before being reposted. Thusly the prompt to change our minds. --Dennisthe2 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Band seems to be notable enough, though the article should obviously be expanded at least at little bit. Murderbike 01:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand all three articles. Mushroom (Talk) 15:05, 11 January 2007 (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.