Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Condemned (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 keep, as nominator withdrew nom. Even if not outright keep per the aforementioned rationale, the debate is closed as no consensus, defaulting to keep. —Kurykh 05:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Condemned (band)

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

Very un-encyclopedic, more of a promotion page. Article that is being used as homepage and is being maintained by 1 user (band member?). The band might not meet WP:Notability (music) (except for disputed point 4) Emmaneul (Talk) 19:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Could you suggest some ways to make the article less un-encyclopedic? Mojowibble 19:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - Counts as advertising and Original Research. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. INBN 09:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Most "references" are just metal fansite reviews of their demos, not WP:RS. Precious Roy 09:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Clean up. Full clean up and rewrite of the page. Remove many images. That the most of the references are from fansites I think is normal in Death Metal. -- Magioladitis 13:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello, thank you for the input. I'll modify the article accordingly. Mojowibble 18:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, I've updated and re-writen the article. Is it up to scratch?Mojowibble 18:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean-up. This death metal band is well established enough. After the clean-up I think the article must stay. Nips 19:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - There seems to be a problem distinguishing trivia from encyclopedic topics. There is no accomplishment or notability here. Where does it end once started? Should every group that ever played be mentioned and why? I always look for an impact on society at large, rather than appeasing the interest of a small group in a given location in the world. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In response to the comments above. I'd doubt if a death metal band would ever make an impact on society at large. Even the most popular acts are outside mainstream musical tastes (and the associated media). There are articles on wikipedia for other bands in the UK and Ireland of similar stature as regards their accomplishments, why should this band be treated differently? Whilst some of the other groups the band have played with may be unneccessary in the document, they do note at the acheivements of the band, a non-notable band wouldn't have had the opportunity to share a stage with the likes of Cannibal Corpse or Obituary etc. Mojowibble 14:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I took a stab at going to each source and review individually, and left intact what I perceived to be reliable sources, i.e. not fan sites or promotional sites, etc. I removed quite a bit, but I believe this band still has enough 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability per WP:Music. Cricket02 15:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I would now say Keep. Article has been cleaned up and looks good now... Emmaneul (Talk) 16:50, 16 July 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.