Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crucible Red

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. --Coredesat 03:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crucible Red

Delete. Local band that does not meet WP:MUSIC. No full length albums, only demos that appear to be self-produced. All the comments supporting the article on the talk page are made by apparent single-purpose accounts. The name brings up about 6 or 7 relevant pages in the first 50 results. Contested speedy. ... discospinster talk 01:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as insufficiently notable high school band. No assertions of notability that meet any of the twelve criteria listed in WP:BAND. No credible, third-party sources as required by WP:V. -- Satori Son 01:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Being the house band of a record store doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Caknuck 01:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BAND? Check. Obvious WP:AUTO and WP:COI? Check. Single purpose accounts? Check [1][2][3][4]. Sock puppetry? Check [5]. Myspace link? Check[6]. Unreleased demos? Check. -- IslaySolomon | talk 02:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Hm, Appears to be a vanity article from the way it is written, not a notable band, (WP:BAND) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The term "vanity" is strongly discouraged in such cases, the appropriate term is "conflict of interest", see WP:COI. Xtifr tälk 04:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity article, not notable. no sources. JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 17:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC -- Librarianofages 02:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As usual, I wish them the best of luck in their future endeavors and hope they will be succesful enough to one day merit an article. In the meantime, they fail basic notability and verifiability criteria. JoshuaZ 20:49, 24 October 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.