Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Toothache

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 of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 16:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Toothache

This music group does not meet the WP:MUSIC notability criteria guideline. Takeel 03:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This article may also be affected by WP:VANITY; see the band members' names and compare them to the edit history usernames. --Takeel 03:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 04:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. DVD+ R/W 04:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity per nom M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Nothing at allmusic. Webpage does not mention any record labels. :) Dlohcierekim 05:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable band, vanity page. --Sunfazer | Talk 10:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Andy123 talk 15:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom as failing WP:MUSIC and WP:VAIN Bucketsofg✐ 16:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Nick C 18:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as I think that the WP:MUSIC guidelines are unnecessarily restrictive. However, if User:AnthonySchultz, the initial author of this article is a part of or friends with Irish Toothache, then I would change my vote to Delete based on Wikipedia:Autobiography. However, I am suspicious that User:Anthony1983 who has been pushing an Irish Toothache-related agenda on Kevin Federline is the same person as User:AnthonySchultz - and if that is the case, then said person is definitely friends with Irish Toothache and I say Delete. Ideally, this would be determined before the article is deleted. --Dwiki 22:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC) Delete - I changed my mind. I thought about it a lot and I've read and re-read Wikipedia:Notability (music) and gone through its talk page and I'm now a lot more okay with it. From its language, I was worried it discriminated against indie and diy punk bands, but it seems like they've hashed it out pretty well and thought through the points I initially thought were unaddressed. I also now understand firsthand why the vanity guidelines are important.--Dwiki 00:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as I agree that the WP:MUSIC guidelines are unnecessarily restrictive. You all say that wikipedia is such a great source for information but are restricting it for no reason. It is not hurting anything to have this article up on the site. In fact, it is bringing a lot of irishtoothache fans to your site. Also, you are holding us to music guidelines, when we are involved with many other facets of entertainment and comedy. While I was working on the article, I felt like I was helping the wikipedia community out by adding a page about a new topic. Now I feel like you are ganging up on someone who is not "part of the group." There are pages upon pages of rules, and you can't expect everyone to read every single guideline when they sign up. I actually am surprised that you all know as much as you do. You'd make good lawyers. --Glaze 23:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Wow, I feel like a celebrity. No, I don't know anyone personally in irishtoothache. I heard about them from a friend at St. Mary’s College, became a fan, did some research, and made a wiki article for the group. When I made this page, I was completely unaware of the criteria that wikipedia uses to determine what constitutes a band. Now that I have read the criteria, I must say that I’m not as much of a fan of wikipedia anymore. If the community only recognizes bands that are already commercially successful, it might as well be getting a paycheck from Clearchannel. I can’t imagine why you would penalize bands for not already being famous and pretend like they don’t exist. Shame on all of you for trying to deny everyone else information on a band because they haven’t gone platinum or had a world tour. How ridiculous. They have plenty of fans that would love to read the article, myself included.--AnthonySchultz 03:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure you did read the criteria. Nowhere is there any mention of mainstream commercial success or that type of music. An old jazz trio that has never made much of a dime can still qualify under the guidelines. Self-released albums just don't cut it if you haven't been successful or influential, such as Ani DeFranco or Jandek. The million bands there are out there don't all get articles; Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscrimenant information. Teke 17:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep This just seems a bit silly...the page is not hurting anyone, and might be of interest to people as this group as a far raching international (perhaps somewhat small) fanbase (many of its members have traveled abroad which is how I found out about the site...from a friend of a friend of Tup who is in Korea). I was going to make a Wikipedia articule about them as I am a big fan of Wikipedia, but this is just ridiculous. I hope you guys get your priorities in check. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.147.236.200 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep, as per Glaze Chuck^(척뉴넘) 12:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support chuck, I really appreciate it. Thanks for seeing past the mere words of the rules and thinking for your own about what you think belongs and doesn't belong on this great website.--Glaze 15:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, which I believe to be perfectly reasonable. And I find the argument "keep this page, it's not hurting anyone" to be laughably bad. -- Scientizzle 17:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's fine. I find the name "Scientizzle" to be laughably lame. AnthonySchultz 17:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What makes it laughably bad, Scientizzle. I don't quite understand your argument because it is not explained well. It seems more like an opinion than an argument to me.--Glaze 19:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, it is my opinion...but allow me to elaborate. This AfD discussion centers on the band's notability. There have been no strong arguments (in my opinion) presented of Irish Toothache meeting WP:MUSIC or any other notability criteria. Then "the page is not hurting anyone" was trotted out as a feeble reason for keep. That statement is basically a concession that Irish Toothache doesn't meet notability criteria. Why shouldn't the big, bad Wikipedia editors delete this page? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; Wikipedia isn't an advertising service for small-time bands (or companies or websites, for that matter); Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and therefore it is a vehicle in which to elaborate on already notable subjects, not try to build notability for a subject. So, this page isn't "hurting anyone," but that doesn't mean unencyclopedic information belongs here. Hope that helps... -- Scientizzle 19:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, saying the band has no notability would be rediculous. Irishtoothache has opened for national recording artists (Bubba Sparxxx, etc.), headlined concerts, has videos that have been featured on many notable websites (like 633tv.com, collegehumor.com, etc.), has an album available on cdbaby, and is even being featured in an art show in Maine next week. Irishtoothache has also been offered various record contracts and are considering which steps to take next in regards to those contracts. So to say that they have no reach and no one knows about Irishtoothache is a little bit far fetched. It's true, they haven't been featured on the sucka free countdown yet, but why wait? It makes more sense to keep the page around so that when Irishtoothache does become famous, the page will be ready and waiting for them. --Glaze 19:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
        • That's covered under Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We've got a page for everything, you know. Teke 01:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Glaze, just in case this doesn't make it, I'm placing the article in your userspace: User:Glaze/Irishtoothache where it may rest until the dreams are fulfilled. Teke 01:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I knew there were some cool wikipedia guys out there somewhere. Thanks for the first nice gesture I've recieved since I created the article last year. AnthonySchultz 14:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Somehow, I don't find the reasoning that the article "isn't hurting anyone" to be particularly persuasive. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep* Clearly you guys need to examine your rules more carefully. Now I would never be one to question people who seem as though they do nothing more than read page after page of articles on Wikipedia trying to find ones that don't meet ridiculous criteria so that people don't accidently get bombarded by "unencyclopedic" information (we all know how awful that would be)...but in this case I feel its my position to argue. My argument is this...OK...Irishtoothache is not notable as a band by the MUSIC standards for notability...and they may fall under the category of the dreaded "VANITY" page...these things I grant you... But on the other side of the coin...they do meet 100 percent of the neccesary qualifications of the "Normal Person's Guidelines for not Being a Silly Nitpicking Loser." Which is more than I can say for most of the people who voted to have the article removed. I don't know how much water this argument holds...but I'm sure I'll be provided with a fully documented report on that soon enough. My apologies to the cool cats at irishtoothache for this childish show of support. Irishtoothache is really cool stuff though...people would be very interested to learn more about the group...this is just a big lame mistake. And alot of you Wikipedia freakshow guys really are losers, completely apart from this discussion. I know many of you personally and your personalities are really...just...awful. But theres always the internet, right? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.117.112.102 (talk • contribs) 10:09, May 17, 2006.
• Delete per nom. WP:Music should be followed. Sandy 02:16, 19 May 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.