Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davien Crow (2nd nomination)

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. I spent a fair amount of time looking this over, the raw numbers are 19 delete votes to 4 keeps, so starting at that level there seems to be a pretty good delete consensus. G4DGET put together a very detailed case for keeping the article which from the looks of it generated a lot of discussion. From my experience when someone presents solid data that supports a keep decision after a AFD is underway it really shows in the votes cast afterwards. In this case most of the votes cast after the case was made were delete votes. The main disagreement was WP:Music and it doesn't look like the case G4DGET made convinced enough folks. I didn't discount any votes for or against as I didn't see any socks (for once) Rx StrangeLove 18:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Davien Crow

Delete. Vanity. I initially speedied this as recreated content (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davien Crow) but the content of that article was: Davien Crow is the singer for the Richmond , Virginia band Sin Star. This is much longer, and makes many assertions of notability, but it is still a vanity page about a non-notable musician. android79 15:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep see my arguments to your claims below.G4DGET 22:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

(NB. The original post of what follows, authored by User:G4DGET, was an extensive commentary stating the reasons she believes the article deserves a place in WP. Owing to its great length, there was some difficulty reading the page. Furthermore, as lengthy, essay-like commentaries are not usually ideal for AfD project pages, I have refactored the comment with an eye to preserving its main arguments yet shortening its length. The original may be found on this AfD's Talk page. As I have refactored the content of comments in a contentious discussion, I abstain from providing any opinion in this AfD.—encephalon 09:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC))

[edit] MY ARGUMENT ABOUT WHY THESE ARTICLES SHOULD BE KEPT

The Requirements Sin Star, Mind Pollution, and Davien Crow meet are listed in the following sections. I have highlighted the guidelines Wikipedia has set and my argument as to why all 3 articles should be kept. If anything as i've said perhaps Mind Pollution should be deleted or be merged under Sin Star and Davien Crow should be kept because of his accomplishments seperate to the band. This is as I said in relevance to Sin Star, Mind Pollution, and Davien Crow articles and their redirects.

  1. WP:MUSIC
    • Being on at least one international or national tour. They have been on 2 which are easily identified in the intangible Internet Archives at Wayback Machine for several sources, claims, and sites that have had information on them. Mainly the official ones.
    • Having 2 Albums (does not specify full length or ep) released on a record label. They have been released on Mushroomcloud Records, Kid Atrium Music, Red Pill Music (self owned), and Independantly. Mind Pollution had to remove their materials with the exception of what was released by Mushroomcloud Records from the market in all forms because of legal trouble noted in several sources.
    • I also realize Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on is in WP:MUSIC but I beleive you guys are being biased and I am going to fight this for as long as I can.
  2. Wikipedia:Notability
  3. In Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies
    (Refactored: see AfD Talk Page for details of User:G4DGET's comments—encephalon 09:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC))
  4. in Wikipedia:Importance
    (Refactored: see AfD Talk Page for details of User:G4DGET's comments—encephalon 09:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC))
  5. Wikipedia:Fame_and_importance
    (Refactored: see AfD Talk Page for details of User:G4DGET's comments—encephalon 09:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC))
  6. THE GOOGLE TEST
    (Refactored: see AfD Talk Page for details of User:G4DGET's comments—encephalon 09:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC))

I Think I have pointed out enough in fact. FAIR IS FAIR, IT MEETS YOUR RULES & GUIDELINES and hopefully you will reconsider the biased delete nominations that have been made because of the voters never reviewing the information beyond what the person who first nominated said (which included false information I may add, perhaps to try to get it deleted faster) or only did so at a galance. If Anything you should leave Davien Crow and then Merge Mind Pollution under Sin Star since they are after all the same band. Another solution would be to merge all 3 and another would be to only keep Sin Star & Davien Crow. Davien however has accomplishments outside of his band that are notable. G4DGET 22:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete. NN. having a poem published does not make you a poet, let alone a notable one. getting a picture on the wall at school does not make you an artist, let alone a notable one. but since the musicianship seems to be whats really at issue, i say Delete until the 2006 album is released, then if (and only if) that album meets the music test recreate. Nateji77 15:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I still think this is recreated content, it's just trying to be sneaky by not being the "Sin Star" article. No allmusic info, looks like vanity. Delete until such a time as he meets WP:MUSIC guidelines. Friday (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I wasn't aware that Sin Star had much the same content at one point. It looks similar, but I'm not sure if it's similar enough to speedy. I'll take a closer look. android79 15:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Ooops, I didn't mean to imply that the content was neccessarily all that similiar. I just thought since the only remote claim to fame for Crow was Sin Star, the subject of the article was pretty the same as the deleted one. Friday (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I added MindPollution, Mind-Pollution.net and SinStar to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. DavienCrow will probably be joining them. Nateji77 16:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
ditto Corey Wade. Nateji77 16:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirects to deleted articles don't need listing at RfD. They can be speedied. I deleted the ones that were. android79 16:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN Vanity. Groeck 17:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, vanity, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Get rid of it Sean 22:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment that's a fairly long explaination. 132.205.94.190 22:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per author. She has done enough to establish notability for mine. Capitalistroadster 23:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Thankyou for taking your time to review the info and for your vote.G4DGET 05:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - OK. Until and unless the lengthy rebuttal has been shown to be false, let's keep it. G4DGET, thanks for all the work you put into this. Your tone is a little strident, but it's not like you don't have reason. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: this could get ugly. People may see this as a threat or bully move. Relevant quote: I'm telling you now this isn't going to be the end of this, it's not a threat on my behalf, you are talking about a band that has fans who tricked MTV.com into posting about them. FWIW, I don't see anything in the rebuttal to suggest this guy meets WP:MUSIC. Friday (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • He has recorded at least 2 albums on labels that fit the criterea, has gone on 2 national tours which can be verified in the internet archives we provided as sources on the article. You only have to meet 1 requirement of WP:Music They all meet at least 2 G4DGET 04:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Also this. android79 23:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zach (Sound Off) 23:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment ZACHS vote should NOT be counted, he did not even give a reason. Perhaps a puppet ? G4DGET 05:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • if you look [3] you'll see that his first edit was on 9 August 2004. that's a long time to keep a sock in a drawer. Nateji77 14:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I am an administrator, plus I do not have to give a reason for my deletion vote. Zach (Sound Off) 05:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, you do. This is a discussion, not a poll. Grace Note 07:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
        • i thought they counted less. after all, "delete per nom" or "delete per above" is essentially the same as simply "delete." Nateji77 14:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Ok, you want a reason, fine. After reading the comments below after placing this vote, I can see that the article is also used for self promotion. And I am also not amused at the tatics outside the AFD that the person who is defending the article is doing. Zach (Sound Off) 17:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity -- (☺drini♫|☎) 23:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --fvw* 23:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • How can you honestly say that after reading any of that ? G4DGET 04:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable vanity. --Carnildo 23:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: For those keeping score, this could also be seen as a threat. Friday (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable vanity. User is clearly writing about himself as is demonstrated by the threat posted to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. -- Francs2000 23:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you think a professional musician has time to do all of this ? I am writing about them I own the fan site located here G4DGET 04:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
no, the problem is that people don't think a professional musician has time to do all this. Nateji77 14:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, vanity. If he has "trademark neon red hair", how come the photo shows him with black hair? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That's why there was a Date listed Genius ( ;, not to mention that is a WRONG REASON TO VITE DELETE also on the Sin Star page there was a photo of this. I also uploaded a photo of his neon red hair but did not have a chance to add it to the article because of all of this. Check for yourself if you'd like G4DGET 04:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • WRONG REASON TO VITE DELETE No such thing. A vote's a vote when it comes from a legitimate editor. --Calton | Talk 06:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment only for now: The publications and awards Crow received from Poetry.com and the International Library of Poetry are not indications of notability. They reportedly accept everything. See [4], [5]. --Metropolitan90 02:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That does not change the fact that the book is published and widely avalible. It is not a book he self published, it is a book containing his published work. G4DGET 04:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment only for now: Halo guitars make custom guitars and push them. As for "endorsement", the Halo web site does not have a listing under either Mind Pollution or Sin Star or Davien Crow on their artists page. Lack of inclusion makes me doubt the claim that Mr. Crow is being endorsed or that Halo might be making a signature guitar unless it is just a custom order. (Sounds like claiming someone is a published author because of a Vanity press publication.) More later, I may even vote register my opinion. WCFrancis 02:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment You may contact HALO GUITARS at wford@haloguitars.com , artist@haloguitars.com about their endorsement. The endorsement has simply not been put up because Davien has not recieved his guitar. When asking please Reference Sin Star's Endorsement and Custom Invert. G4DGET 04:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Look the point summarized is I am willing to work with you guys on why these were deleted but until now noone has given us any feedback and has even lied about stuff trying to get it deleted. All 3 of them meet the sufficient amount of requirements for WP:MUSIC, the guidelines in WP:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies, Wikipedia:Importance, Wikipedia:Notability (the fact that suicide girls, gidget gein, and marilyn manson are involved and can be verified in those links should proove that) , Wikipedia:Fame_and_importance mainly the part stating "There is clear proof that a reasonable number of people are or were concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)" If you can't tell the community of Myspace.com and Livejournal.com alone are enough to meet this criterea you are blind. If you do google searches, go to forums and search their names, or visit internet archives you can find un-disputable information on the band from reputable sources, first hand accounts that are years older than these discussions, and intangible archives kept by internet archives. IF you want more detail read my above rant, your right I do sound mad about this, because I can't see how you can say they do not meet criterea or that this is a vanity page. Please accept my apologies for anything you have taken to be rude and please re-consider changing your vote. What Harm could it do ? BTW I am not trying to bully anyone, I can show you the location of the people threatening to come here and vandalize the hell out of Wikipedia. But I do not want that to be part of your decision at all. PLEASE THINK IT OVER G4DGET 04:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment To anyone that recieved a personalized message on their User Talk page that took it as spam please forgive me, I was simply replying a little more personally to your vote's reasons in hopes that you would be willing to civily discuss them without making tons of uneeded comments on here. My point has been made but I still feel some of you are ignoring it because of various reasons G4DGET 05:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most of the so-called markers of notability are meaningless and occasionally false. As for I am not trying to bully anyone, that's transparent bullcrap, and I'm putting G4DGET on notice that my vote is final and not up for any discussion whatsoever. Don't even try. --Calton | Talk 06:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It does much more harm to deny this editor her article than it does to let her have it. Wikipedia is far too stringent when it comes to bands anyway. We could happily include articles on any band that is verifiable, so long as they were written neutrally, and none of the delete voters would even notice! Grace Note 07:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • This place is intended as an encyclopedia, Dr. Zen, not as a personal psychotherapy site. And the harm is the precedent that anyone who screams loud enough, no matter how bogus their arguments (and these arguments are very bogus, indeed) can get an article to promote their pet cause/project. --Calton | Talk 16:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


  • A detailed argument deserves a detailed response. It seems that all but one of the points given don't establish notability. No one has noted a specific actual national tour they were on (their own tour, not a one or two-time guest). The music guidelines require release by a major label or major indie label, meaning one "with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". Publishing on poetry.com also is not notable; the idea is that someone's own entire work, more than a small amount of poetry, is published. Having things on the web, whether personal or business sites, reviews, blogs, forum posts, etc. are not notable unless read by many tens of thousands of people. Anyone could join BMI, and lots of non-notable garage bands are listed on sites and forums on the same page as other names. So the notability question comes down to one point, his cult following: if it exists, Davien Crow and his band are notable. If there is a small or no cult following, they are not notable.
  • Upon examination, it seems that there is not a significant cult following. Davien Crow gets 0 mentions on a xanga search, and the same for "sin star"; one blog ring for sin star has only 4 members. Sin Star has 849 MySpace friends, compared to a random 18-year-old with 769. No actual cult following here. Delete. DDerby(talk) 06:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per the arguments given by DDerby. --G Rutter 08:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with the assessment by DDerby that most of the facts given to establish notability aren't very relevant. To me it comes down to one thing: the band. If this guy is notable is any way, it's as a musician, right? As far as I've been able to see, certain things are lacking: There's no mention in allmusic. There's no indication of an actual national tour. There are no records on a major label or an important small label. Having rubbed elbows with more famous people doesn't automatically make one famous by extension. It's unfortunate that things got heated and that the band supporters took this Afd personally. Please understand, this is not a judgement that the subject of the article is bad or untalented. This is simply about whether this subject belongs in an encyclopedia. Many, many bands that are real, have played lived, and have made recordings have been deleted before. Friday (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
agree. it was before my time, but i think a lot of people would have voted delete on Ian MacKaye, claiming Dischord Records to be a self-published vanity label, during Minor Threat or even Fugazi's early days. Crow's only 20, word will get out--or it won't.Nateji77 14:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Once again, Delete: DDerby is right on the money here. Having a livejournal group devoted to something doesn't make it notable. --Sean Jelly Baby? 15:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment So being featured on a site with 35,0000 members, having user upon user on place like myspace.com, having a site againsr you with 6,000 people on it's LJ community, having toured nationally, and so on and so forth is not notability ??? ... lol What about notability in a particular SCENE of music G4DGET 23:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, part of the Sin Star/Mind Pollution set of articles. I would like to point out that fighting tooth-and-nail to get an article kept (and even resorting to sockpuppets and insults and threats) not only doesn't work, it can also have the opposite effect and cause people to vote to delete out of ill will. When and if you participate further on WP, I hope these tactics change. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per DDerby and others. My vote is not a reaction to the strident defense of the article, but simply that all the arguments and citations, if analyzed, don't distill down to a lot of actual facts establishing notability. --MCB 22:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; non-notable. Ral315 WS 03:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, unencyclopedic. CDC (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.