Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clockwerk (the band)

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. - Mailer Diablo 05:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clockwerk (the band)

Clockwerk (the band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable band with no reliable sourcing. No evidence of produced albums, just an unsubstantiated claim of "numberous" shows on the East Coast, with somewhat more notable acts. Sethacus 02:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as nom.--Sethacus 02:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reads like PR. Renee 02:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. If we can perhaps get a notable news source mentioning the band, then undelete the article. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 02:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BAND. Bfigura (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - NN band... They've gone through the normal routes (Myspace etc) and now have tried their hand at an article on Wikipedia... Spawn Man 03:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE This is not a mainstream band and should not be treated as such. The group has cultural relevance and is actually surprisingly well known on the East coast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelmyths (talk • contribs) 03:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply - Well it's obviously because their particular sound is just so unique that it can't be defined and confined by society, and we're obviously too narrow-minded to understand. ;) Spawn Man 04:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see. Well delete this entry then. I'm frightfully ashamed of posting something while being unaware that capitalism is the primary focus of proof. I can only imagine the amount undocumented art that has fallen through Wikipedia's hands due to people who assume that the only thing that exists is that which is accepted by mass popular culture. I felt that my references were just, as well as the members of this group having rather reputable backgrounds. I did only post this after recognizing that this group was referenced on an approved page, that being the Eccentrik Festival's page. Thanks for you time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isamu242 (talk •

contribs) 04:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Ooh, take your little appeal to emotion and get the hell out. I'm sick to the teeth of hearing about Wikipedia's bias and how we oppress this group and that. If you don't like it, leave. --Agamemnon2 16:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Isamu242. -- Ben 04:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for now, as they do not appear to be notable, but no prejudice against re-creation at a later date.--Danaman5 07:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as it asserts notability for a non-mainstream genre per WP:MUSIC. I would delete Adam Daub, however. Bearian 15:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:Band. --Endless Dan 16:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per nom. Operating 22:52, 26 September 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.