Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic Wuz

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic Wuz

I've tried to move the personal attacks/conversation below the line. Please put votes above it. --Xcali 21:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Once you filter out the crossrhythms site which lists every album on every page, you get ~30 hits. Obvious vanity, article written in first person. --Xcali 15:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for above reason and for the butchering of the english language.--Kross 15:36, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• but the entry was only put up today so maybe you should wait and see. And besides I could find alot of bands on this encyclopedia that YOU (Xcali) don't know. And you there mr. "Butchering the english language", if only english first language people wrote on this site it would be SO much smaller. --80.229.167.70 16:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. First off, don't create a new header just for a comment. Second, where did I say only english speakers should be allowed to edit Wikipedia? Oh wait, thats right, I didn't.--Kross 16:36, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Just trying to make the point that the reason that Wiki is a user based encyclopedia is so people can correct mistakes aswell. Don't knock just correct. --Granted 16:42, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • I may not know them, but if they're notable, Google probably will. If Google doesn't, then it's up to the Wikipedians to decide. --Xcali 18:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Excuse me but Google does know them --Granted 19:01, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete: user seems to not be open to contributing in a positive sense to wikipedia. jglc | t | c 17:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• SEEMS not to be?... your going to have to tell us how a page about a music group (that some people would obviously want to read) can be negative?

--Granted 17:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• • Nobody wants to read your garbage. By wasting our time to delete your nonsense, you are affecting the Wikipedia community in a negative manner. jglc | t | c 22:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Right, you are having a go at a page that is about a music band from Denmark, but you overlook the complete 40-year-old living with his parents, humping a blow-up dole nerd? His page is a freaking “list of ancient Jedi"? How about you get rid of that useless piece of crap, and keep something that is actually relevant to this plant, and not another Galaxy someone called Nigel cares about?

(unsigned comment by User:81.156.248.154 —Wahoofive (talk) 18:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC))

• Delete fails WP:MUSIC—Wahoofive (talk) 18:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment User:Grant Fletcher is being pretty petty and tried (half assly) to VFD an article I created. Next time, use this, sport. By the way, I pride myself in being a nerd, geek and dork.--Kross 18:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Relax Kross, I never accused you of being a nerd, geek or dork. Plus (this is for Wahoofive) if U start talking about WP:MUSIC then maybe u should read point 5: stating that if the band has been featured in major media then it is worth hearing about. Half of the entry is a reveiw from a music magazine. And at the bottom of the entry is a link to a radio station that plays the album quite often.--Granted 18:35, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • That would make it a copyright violation, then, would it not? Also, I don't think I'd refer to Crossrhythms as "major music media." It's a nice publication (I've read a couple issues), but it's still a niche publication. I don't think your comments on this page aren't helping your cause.--Xcali 20:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Deanna (Revolution Radio) - I enjoy playing Genetic Wuz. They have a unique sound which portrays the younger musicians in Europe who are having a go. I'm sick of commercial music. Its rubbish! Genetic Wuz is fresh and creative, which in my opinion shows up a lot of the commercial music we play it along side. I think this album is taking the next generation of musicians in another direction - young people are wanting to be different, to stand out, more than other generations have in the past. Of this, I'm a massive supporter. Unsigned edit by 84.92.81.108 (talk · contribs)
  • This is 84.92.81.108's first edit. --Xcali 20:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Right guys here is the deal! Why are we having a frikin sh1tfit over the Christian version of Slipknot? This stuff belongs in the bible and not in an encyclopedia. This is the place where I copy paste my history essays from.

Ummm....and being a nerd is not a good thing to be and foreigners should not be allowed to post on wiki.....ah crap that counts me out.

Anyway Granted rules....but grant is a (genetic) wuz...???!!!???

20:13 June 14 2005 (manually added the date yay)

Unsigned comment by 172.212.142.34 (talk · contribs)

• Well since this many people know this band then I think it should stay on. --Granted 19:17, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Who? A bunch of puppets? They don't carry much clout around here. --Xcali 20:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• NO WAY! KICK IT KICK IT! WE WANT NERD NEWS! Unsigned comment by 172.212.142.34 (talk · contribs)

• 172.212.142.34's only edits have been to this page. --Xcali 20:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete. The above discussion is enough evidence, I think. jglc | t | c 20:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry. voted twice. jglc | t | c 22:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well seeing that we have had the Star Wars complication, it looks like we have hit the X-Men one too. Where do all you sad gitts come from? I didn’t know our Ex-colonial friends grew them, in such vast numbers. So I have to finish off with something a very famous Irish man thought of:

“America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.”

Sorry chaps but there is more room for something real, then an 8ft tall teddy-bare with a stupid name, and a man with iron claws in his arm… Scipio Aemilianus

Pseudo-signed edit by 81.156.248.154 (talk · contribs)

• • While you're going on about nationality and race, how about this: Go get drunk. jglc | t | c 13:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - My sensors detect a sockpuppet overload. --FCYTravis 20:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep it. How is the above discussion evidence enough? what point are you trying to pull atention to? I have a point to pull atention to: If we look at what Wiki itself states in WP:MUSIC point 5: stating that if the band has been featured in major media then it is worth hearing about. As I said half of the entry is a reveiw from a music magazine (a mag is media guys) and at the bottom of the entry is a link to a radio station that plays the album quite often (plus one of the DJ's posted her own opinion). There should be no more discussing: keep the page (WP:MUSIC says so). (and are those puppet remarks directed at me? give a reason FCYTravis). --Granted 20:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

The sockpuppet remarks are directed at the jillions of unsigned new users voting here with no other contributions. Those are considered sockpuppets. As to your other point, airplay on one station and an article in one minor magazine does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Regardless, the sockpuppet tactics will backfire because articles supported by sockpuppets generally tend to attract real delete votes on principle. --FCYTravis 20:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• WP:MUSIC is not a set of rules. Allow me to quote: "This page gives some rough guidelines which we might use to decide if a musical topic is notable" (emphasis mine). You have also failed to establish how this group meets the criteria on that page. --Xcali 20:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn band vanity, sock-puppet supported. --Etacar11 20:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Trying to figure this lark out. vanity maybe but that is because I know more than anyone on the subject (though half of this article has now been deleted anyway). There are other people other than me who have looked at this site aswell. Plus I knew many people who wanted to hear a non-bias opoion about this band and how can they get it of of there official website. So if WP:MUSIC is not a set of rules then we have nothing to go by. except it does state that wiki editors like to use it as guidelines when deciding what to delete meaning this article would be fine. Criteria was radio and magazine coverage aka major media. Plus I remember someone saying crossrythms is a minor magazine? well sorry America but over here in Europe we might just have some different magazines than you do over there. Plus GW has been played on more radio stations than one (mostly in the UK though, sorry USA you miss out). --Granted 21:17, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is that we don't have evidence of the notability of this group. They may be played on radio stations, but we've got no way of knowing it. Just getting on a few radio stations may not be enough. Had you read my comment, I said that I was familiar with Crossrhytms. I event went so far as to try find its circulation numbers, but I failed in that attempt. I stick by my original statement--it's a niche magazine for those heavily into Contemporary Christian Music. Finally, an English wikipedia will tend to be somewhat US-centric due to the number of English speaking internet users in the US versus the number of English speaking internet users outside the US. It's a systemic bias that we constantly have to deal with here. --Xcali 21:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • My group has been played on the radio twice or thrice. It doesn't mean jack squat. I don't deserve a wikipedia entry, and neither do these guys. jglc | t | c 22:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, sock puppet and personal attack limits have both been exceeded. RickK 21:57, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• I was just going to ask where RickK had been :-) Sockpuppet limit was reached a while ago. Delete as minorbandcruft supported by anonymous sockpuppets. Hermione1980 22:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:MUSIC, and there's a surplus of sockpuppets. --Carnildo 22:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence of notability and these sockpuppet edits are just oo much... Despite that, good luck in the future and maybe we can write about you someday once you do meet the notability guidelines. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:18, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. At this stage, they appear not to be notable enough to warrant inclusion at this stage. The heavy presence of socks detracts from the cause. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if only for the impoliteness of supporters. Also, non-notable. Xoloz 05:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 05:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Commenting again. Okay I can see you guys (except for a few of you) don't think this band is important enough to mention on the (non-paper) wikipedia at the moment though I have tried to establish that such things as the fact that it has had frequent radio play in the UK and that it has had a larger feature in a magazine. Maybe you guys don't think that is enough. It is obviously one music geek Vs. quite a few SW and comic book geeks (not trying to be offencive by the way, Kross admits it). Okay here is the thing: Sick of the sock puppet larck (what the heck is up with the not liking new people). You do know there are lots of people that use this site that don't have users right? well whatever guys it is up to the boys upstairs to decide i guess (wish i was one). oh yeah Sasquatch has been the biggest dude yet (except for DJ Dea of revolution radio) --Granted 13:22, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because whenever a band gets a huge defense from a bunch of anonymous users, it makes me think that they're in Wikipedia to get notability, not because of notability. --Scimitar 14:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • comment to Scimitar. Well the name is so odd you would have to know the band allready to find them on wikipedia. You wouldn't just random search would you now.--Granted 17:55, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Every little band with a 7" has their own Wikipedia page. As long as they're not hi-jacking a title (and I don't think that Genetic Wuz is likely to refer to anything else) there's little harm in letting the page stay. Pburka 16:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Guys, listen to yourselves, you sound like old women!? Don’t you have anything better to do then go and criticize someone’s page? So what if the English is broken? They are foreign for goodness sakes! And I agree with the statement that if you took of all the foreign contributions, there would be little left. So stop being such nurds and get a freaking life, rather then hammering on something so trivial?Unsigned edit by 81.156.248.154 (talk · contribs)

• If it's so trivial, then it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. --Xcali 18:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I would just like to mention that you are not a nerd. Nerds do well in school and then end up making lots and lots of money, such as Bill Gates and even the giver of life to this sad and pointless being, namely Start Wars, George Lucas. You on the other hand have achieved nothing. Nerds are good and what they do best, for example, figuring out how to get to the moon. Something worthy of society, whereas you have done nothing except written down a few people who don’t exist. So don’t pride in something you are not. 18:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)Scipio Aemilianus Pseudo-signed edit by 81.156.248.154 (talk · contribs)
  • Comment: User's only edits are to this page and to the "List of ancient Jedi" VfD discussion. --Xcali 20:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well to be honest, its not like you are doing anything to contribute… Unsigned edit by 81.156.248.154 (talk · contribs)
  • My 1000+ edits speak for themselves. Your 0 edits outside of VFD space speak for themselves as well - via deafening silence. --FCYTravis 20:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• That is a very sad thing to admit, 1000+, do you have a life? And on the point of Sockpuppeting, I don’t even know Genetic Wuz, but someone has to tell a jerk that he is one. This is probably the single biggest reason why Americans are hated across the world. I can only restate what I have said before:

“America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.”Unsigned edit by 81.156.248.154 (talk · contribs)

• First you say I'm not doing anything to contribute then you attack me for having a lot of contributions. Which is it? Get your personal attacks straight please. --FCYTravis 20:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Your contributions to the “Wuz” referral are minimal if that, and I don’t care how many contributions to exhaust pipe licking you have made.Unsigned edit by 81.156.248.154 (talk · contribs)

• I don't contribute to articles that ought to be deleted as unencyclopedic. I vote to delete them. Thanks for playing. --FCYTravis 20:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Anyway, this has been thoroughly entertaining. I wish to thank you all for you help in giving me a rather enjoyable evening, even if it was at your expense. For this I salute you, my ex-colonial friends. May King George V look down in delight…what a fine nation Unsigned edit by 81.156.248.154 (talk · contribs)

• for crying out you guys this guy just put on something personal thats all. Just give him the page don't you have anything else to do? Go and critize other sites which contain racisim or anyother of abusive stuff!Unsigned edit by Ceasium (talk · contribs)
  • First edit ever by User:Ceasium. --Xcali 19:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah so does it matter???? i just found out what i could actually do with Wikipedia and found out that this was possible after i saw it was up for deletion and i read all the reasons and arguments, i found it so ridiculous that i thought that i might as well say something. give him the site he is not doing any harm is he????--213.78.64.116 20:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Not only is it his first edit ever, its his *only* edit. Same with you. Question: Would the encyclopedia have entries for every small time musical group, especially one that hardly registers any hits on Google? Didn't think so. Like the others have said, maybe if Genetic Wuz becomes famous or even more notable, then they can have a page on Wikipedia. Maybe this'll make a nice goal for them. :)--Kross 23:07, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.