Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical Mass (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. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 15:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Critical Mass (band)
No vote here. Deleted before by uncontested prod, see the article's talk page for arguement and the article itself to discern notability. Teke (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:Music, and clearly fails WP:COI. Crunk 03:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. MER-C 04:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - not notable John Reaves 07:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep PLayed in front of 60 000 persons and are well-known all over the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.226.160.237 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment actually, there was a previous AfD (the result was delete), the admin who deleted the article seems to have made a mistake in his log comment. Xtifr tälk 14:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as conflict of interest, fails WP:BAND, recreation of deleted material, etc., etc... Seraphimblade 16:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as failing verifiability and not meeting WP:BAND criteria. The creator had 48 hours to provide sources. There are still no sources. --Wafulz 17:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete because wikipedia doesnt need an article about every crappy little band out there. ArmAndLeg 17:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 05:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete hate to do it, but non-notable. ReverendG 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep As I see it, there are two issues that could cause deletion here; 1. repost of deleted content, 2. conflict of interest. When I saw it on NP patrol I marked it as speedy for the reposting issue, but looking at the previous AFD (here) it looked to me like it should have been re-listed to generate a larger consensus. After talking with the article's creator and actually reading the article I became convinced that this article does indeed meet WP:Music. When the article's creator assured me that he could add reliable sources to the article I figured that, once that was done it would be enough to negate the repost issue, though the conflict of interest issue remains. Conflict of interest is a serious problem, but with a recently promoted admin who wrote an article about himself when he was new, I figured it wasn't all that big of a deal. I see now that User:Criticalmassjohn, or someone, has indeed added some references to the article. They seem keen to know if the article will be deleted or not before they go and do more work on it. As far as the criteria for notability set out in WP:MUSIC go:
- Criteria 3: Toured the US and Canada
- Criteria 4: They have released 4 albums with CMC Distribution. CMC Distributon "is the world’s largest distributor of Christian music outside of the United States of America " CMC's website. Here's a google search for CMC [1].
- Criteria 5: Sources have been added
- Criteria 8: They have won the Canadian equivalent of the Dove Awards (If you don't know what the dove awards are, go read the article I linked to. If you aren't into Christian music, but are into Country Music, the Dove awards are like the Country Music Association Awards.).
- Criteria 12: They have had documentaries made about them and shown throuought Canada.
By my count that's 5 criteria they meet. For those of you who like google counts, a google search for ""Critical Mass" rock band Canada" gives 205,000 hits [2] of course, not all of those hits are relevant (does anyone ever manage to get a google search that only gives relevant results?), but most are. Frankly, I don't see how they aren't notable. I think the last AFD did not have sufficent participation and should have been relisted. I trust that this article will, given a short time, change substatially from the one that was already deleted, and the only concern remaining is the conflict of interest. Like notability, WP:COI is a guideline, not policy. Considering the fact that, as was stated on the article's talk page the original, deleted article was not written by a band member, and considering the allowances that have been made in the past for COI violations, I don't see that as too much of a problem in this instance. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 05:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. -- ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 05:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
From David Wang: I apologize for causing all this controversy over this site. As someone who is new to all this (I am not familiar with the procedures for wikipedia), I noticed an entry for our band about 2 years ago (not sure of the exact time) while doing a routine google search. At the time, the entry was very terse so I took the liberty of adding more info. I was not aware that this was a conflict of interest according to the guidelines. I have added some relevant citations and links to external websites. I have asked a few people who are knowledgable about Catholic music to consider coming in to change the site substantially so that I am not the primary contributor to this site. I believe that, even now, we have satisfied the essence of all the requests made of us to verify the content. I would appreciate it if we could stay on the site as we have made every effort to comply with all the wikipedia.org guidelines. At this point, I will refrain from making any more additions/changes to the entry. Thanks for all of your helpful comments and your patience.
AN ADDITIONAL NOTE: Okay.. I found the original version of the band listing... it was under CriticalMass (no spaces). This was the one that I saw originally. Being new to Wikipedia, I created a new entry as opposed to modifying that one.. as you will note, this has been around since Sept 2005...
I think since all the discussion is surrounding this entry, that entry should perhaps be deleted. Anyways, just want to verify what happened.
- Keep, the article is greatly improved over the version that was previously deleted. I still have reservations about the award (being "equivalent to" a much bigger and more well-known award does not imply "the same as" the bigger award when it comes to notability--the San Francisco Bay Area "Bammie" awards are equivalent to the Grammies, but far from being the same when it comes to notability). And most minor indie labels hook up with big distributors (or they don't survive), so having a big distributor is in no way equivalent to being on a "major label or important indie" (which is what WP:BAND asks for). But even with those and a couple of other more dubious claims to notability discounted, they do seem to meet the notability requirements. Barely, perhaps, but barely is all that's asked for. And, more importantly, verifiability seems to be established. Xtifr tälk 00:57, 28 November 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.
