Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jew slaughter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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. Woohookitty 07:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Jew slaughter
Nn band, only 30 hits for '"Jew slaughter" Alcoholocaust', no entry on allmusic or artistdirect, although both have entries for an album called Alcoholocaust, but by a band called the Piss Drunks. Zoe 23:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I had an embarassing number of hits with "Jew slaughter band" on Google, including a mention on the Anti-Defamation League website. (Link included on my rewrite.) I was also the person who undeleted this article when Lucky6.9 zapped it; I don't like this article any more than you, Zoe, but if Skrewdriver is included, this band should be also. -- llywrch 23:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- How come they don't show up on artistdirect and allmusic? Just being disgusting Nazis doesn't make them notable. If their music was about puppies and kittens and they only had 30 Google hits and didn't show up on allmusic and artistdirect, would we be having this conversation? Zoe 23:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- So what's the criteria here: over hundreds of hits on Google or a mention on those two websites? Not that I'll shed a tear about this article about these drunken hatemongers being deleted, but last time the standards for notability had been up for a vote, the number of Google hits was more important for a band than just where the band is mentioned. -- llywrch 00:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- How come they don't show up on artistdirect and allmusic? Just being disgusting Nazis doesn't make them notable. If their music was about puppies and kittens and they only had 30 Google hits and didn't show up on allmusic and artistdirect, would we be having this conversation? Zoe 23:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete -- Skrewdriver at least gets an AMG entry. NN is still NN, regardless of their politics. --Howcheng 23:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete notability not established (and after reseaching that filth I'm going for a shower) --Doc (?) 23:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - NE - Aleichem 23:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
- Slaughter. NNBV. -- BD2412 talk 01:14, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: Does not meet any of the seven WP:MUSIC guidelines. Wikibofh 01:59, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep even though I want to throw up saying so. The fact is, they are notable per WP:MUSIC for being notable within their genre: white power, racist, anti-semitic rock. Blech. JDoorjam 02:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I'm not sure I'd categorize that as a genre. Wikibofh 03:31, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I can't believe this is even up for debate. Yes, I pulled the trigger on this idiocy and I'd do it again in a heartbeat. We play by rules. Rules are for nice people. These are not nice people. We are giving them five days of free advertising. I'm going away before I say what the hell I really think of being reverted on this. - Lucky 6.9 02:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- What, exactly, do you mean by "rules are for nice people. These are not nice people"? That disagreeing with their ideology means that it's not encyclopedic? It sucks, but sometimes doing our job as wikipedians means recording the feats of racists. JDoorjam 03:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I would disagree with Lucky if this were a band which had several releases and showed up in allmusic and artistdirect, but the fact that they don't is why I listed them and argued for their deletion, not their style of music. Zoe 05:11, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Lucky, I hope your deletion of this article on sight was an isolated act. By listing this article here, Zoe followed procedure & behaved responsibly so that the fate of this article can be justified. Even if an article is indefensible nonsense, it still must needs to undergo a defined process on Wikipedia: it has to be listed on VfD or at least Speedy Delete first, where the rest of us contributors are given time to offer their input whether the article should be deleted. We do it this way not because Wikipedia is a democracy, but because it is a form of peer review, the primary rationale for using Wikiwiki software to build an encyclopedia. If you can't understand why we follow this process, maybe you should resign as Admin. -- llywrch 18:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- No, this isn't a democracy and I believe in the rules. I made a decision on a bit of filth that basically resolves to a few bits of data on which we've already spent entirely too much time discussing. As far as resigning is concerned, I have entirely too much of said time, effort and brain cells invested in this site. Including this article does not further the cause of this site nor can it serve as an object lesson to someone doing honest research on hate crimes. Look at the arguments it's causing right now. - Lucky 6.9 19:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- What arguments? AFAICS, all of us are discussing this matter very civilly. Commendably, I would venture to say. But if you don't want to participate in discussion over the material & explain your own POV, then I would say you are going to leave Wikipedia out of frustration, & much sooner than you expect. -- llywrch 20:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- No, this isn't a democracy and I believe in the rules. I made a decision on a bit of filth that basically resolves to a few bits of data on which we've already spent entirely too much time discussing. As far as resigning is concerned, I have entirely too much of said time, effort and brain cells invested in this site. Including this article does not further the cause of this site nor can it serve as an object lesson to someone doing honest research on hate crimes. Look at the arguments it's causing right now. - Lucky 6.9 19:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Zoe hit the nail on the head. We have lots of distasteful articles on other wastes of flesh who, despite the fact they're scum, deserve an article. Using the lovely and talented Chancellor Hitler as an example, it would be patently ridiculous not to have an article on him. I'm not debating the right for distasteful articles like this to exist. Historical figures, living and dead, are fine for inclusion. If, God forbid, these schmucks had a shred of notability, hey...let 'em stay. These schmucks do not...and I'm using a Yiddish term on purpose. I stand by my opinion since they're not only flaunting the rules, we're letting them do so. - Lucky 6.9 05:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or rewrite to establish notability, although I doubt that will happen --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 11:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Utterly non-notable, fail WP:MUSIC. This shouldn't even be a discussion. Proto t c 11:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. nn vanity, fails WP:MUSIC. Redwolf24 (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. nn, fails WP:MUSIC ----> only one album Roodog2k 18:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Comment as repugnant and disgusting as (I hope) we all find this group, we should not vote to delete based on their wretched views. Roodog2k 18:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Delete doesn't seem very notable. ADL mention is notable though. With more mainstream media coverage I would vote keep. Klonimus 09:23, 27 August 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.
