Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death By Gluten

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 speedy delete CSD A7 -- Samir धर्म 23:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death By Gluten

Death By Gluten (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Disputed speedy with author. Desperately fail WP:MUSIC, an IP sockpuppet of the author has also been editing on the talk page to try and dispute the speedy RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • As a note none of the users commenting on the talk page are from a "sockpuppet". I don't know why you think that, but I know that there are at least three distinct people commenting on the page. I am one of them, the author another, and another person that is neither him nor I. I hope that before considering to delete this page you visit the homepage and listen to the song "Got Wheat". If you don't have the time to research this issue, I don't know why you would take the time to consider deletion of the page. 64.223.180.118 02:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Death by Google - plus death by WP:MUSIC. Otto4711 02:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The talk page for the article is turning into a farcicle, could people please read that before expressing judgement. It makes the article come awfully close to db-nonsenseRyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 02:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - 1) I do not appreciate the insinuation that I have been using sockpuppets. I have in fact signed each and every one of the comments coming from me. I see no reason to do otherwise. I believe that there are enough different IPs commenting on that page to show that Mr. Ryan is throwing around false accusations. If you end up deleting the page, I will respect that decision, but I'd like to see this fellow take some heat for throwing in nonconstructive insults and accusations with no evidence to back them up.

2) Since we have now established (at least, I have said as much as I possibly can to try to convince you) that the other comments are NOT me, I'd like to point out that I can't control what they say. Whether their arguements are good or bad is irrelevant to me, because I did not make them. If that page has degenerated into farce, it is not good for me either, so why would I be doing it?

3) I realize that you may call me on 'meatpuppeting', but the fact is this: I myself never bothered to create a Wikipedia account until I decided to create this entry. I admit that some the people whose attention I have called to the article probably created accounts just to comment, but I can assure you that they are all regular Wikipedia users. I realize that that may not have any relevance, and also that I have no way to prove it, but I thought I might throw it out there on good faith.

4) My main arguement for the relevance of the page is this: The band does not meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines, that much is quite clear. However, as previously stated on the page's discussion, the main purpose of the band is promotion of Celiac Sprue awareness. That purpose comes ahead even of making music. Since that is the case, I would prefer that the entry be judged as a disease awareness tool, rather than as a band. If that is unacceptable, so be it, but please, Mr. Ryan, give me some specific points that we can debate instead of throwing the same sorry links at me when I have already accepted your point and explained why I think the entry is still relevant. I'd like to establish a dialogue here, but all you have done is paste internal links, insult me, and throw around accusations. But as I said, I respect the judgement of Wikipedia in the end. Shathaniel 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • There's already an article on Coeliac disease. Wikipedia doesn't need an article on this band to call awareness to it. You don't get to decide the criteria under which your aricle is reviewed. It's an article about a band and the band does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia under the appropriate guideline, WP:MUSIC. Otto4711 04:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I would in turn argue that Wikipedia doesn't "need" a lot of its articles...but if the article is not competely farcical or frivolous, why go to the trouble to delete it? Obviously I can't decide the criteria under which the article is reviewed, but I am allowed to recommend the light in which the article is viewed. If you believe that the entry should be deleted, then I respect that opinion. But please do not talk down to me. I believe that the article does contribute something, whether as a band or otherwise, but as I have repeatedly stated, I will respect the final judgment of the Wikipedia admins.Shathaniel 04:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:MUSIC 99of9 03:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete --Peta 05:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 07:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and salt. Typical high-school band vanity, with some random nonsense added. No need to waste further time on this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete it doesn't provide any on-trivial and credible sources, thus the criterium of WP:MUSIC is not satisfied. TSO1D 18:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and salt per WP:MUSIC rather absurd and a huge waste of time! Venicemenace 19:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and salt, This is a prime example of non notable bands. Philip Gronowski Contribs 23:02, 11 January 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.