Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knugen Faller
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 of the debate was delete. I got 9,610 Google hits, but only 271 of them are non-duplicates, effectively nullifying most of the arguments to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Knugen Faller
- Delete: Non-notable band. Article even admits that they've released no CDs at all - only LPs. WP:MUSIC suggests two full-length albums on major labels. No mentions on either Amazon or AllMusic. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It needs cleanup. But the band has been getting press since 2004, judging from the links, and the article claims a number of releases. Further, I don't understand the nom's position that LPs are somehow less, um, notable than CDs. Swedish punk rock is not necessarily the best place to apply WP:MUSIC. Jkelly 03:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The only releases I see the article referring to are two short 7" vinyl EP's. As far as the notability of CDs, my simple answer is "it's 2006". I can burn CDs on my computer. On the other hand, I don't own a record player and I can't remember the last time I've even seen one. How can a band be notable if 90% (I'm guessing) of houses don't have the equipment to physically play their music? Is this some Swedish trend that I'm not aware of? Are they releasing 8-tracks next? —Wknight94 (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe we should delete Al Jolson or Bing Crosby then as their releases were all vinyl. And yes I know the two examples I gave have subsequently been released on CD. Jcuk 11:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well that completely misses my point. Jolson's and Crosby's releases were from 50 years ago (or whenever). Just show me one other notable band whose entire discography is on vinyl only and is less than five years old and I'll be quiet (or I'll nominate them for Afd too). —Wknight94 (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep 9k hits from google [1], seems fairly notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astrokey44 (talk • contribs) .
- Comment: FWIW, I don't see 9k hits from your link - I see 607. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well I see it saying "Results 1 - 10 of about 9,350 for "Knugen Faller"" -- Astrokey44|talk 05:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll take your word for it. Must be some Google preference we have set up differently. I get "Results 1 - 100 of about 607 for "Knugen Faller". (0.15 seconds)". —Wknight94 (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- I was getting 608, but now am getting 9,350. So, its not a difference in preferences. You're just hitting different servers, as we're apparently in the midst of a "Google dance" (I suspect its over now, and if you redo the search, you'll get the higher number). In any event, the uniques seems to remain constant. But, its hard to compare. --Rob 23:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, it went up to only 617. I don't get it. And if I take out the double quotes, I still only get 745. That's quite a discrepancy - Google gives seven hundred or nine thousand depending on what time of day it is or whatever?! Maybe I need to sell that stock before someone else finds out... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, everybody "found out" before the Google IPO, back when Google dances were a bigger deal. This is a very *minor* variation. The unique results remain similiar, as do the top results. The raw hit figure (617/9350), is a nearlly trivial figure. As said many time, one site can account for hundred of thousands of hits. In fact *non-existant* urls can be included in that "hit" figure (I'm not talking of down urls, I'm talking of urls that never existed). Perhaps, I should add yet another qualifier to Wikipedia:Google test, as this test continues to be a problem. --Rob 17:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, it went up to only 617. I don't get it. And if I take out the double quotes, I still only get 745. That's quite a discrepancy - Google gives seven hundred or nine thousand depending on what time of day it is or whatever?! Maybe I need to sell that stock before someone else finds out... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I was getting 608, but now am getting 9,350. So, its not a difference in preferences. You're just hitting different servers, as we're apparently in the midst of a "Google dance" (I suspect its over now, and if you redo the search, you'll get the higher number). In any event, the uniques seems to remain constant. But, its hard to compare. --Rob 23:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll take your word for it. Must be some Google preference we have set up differently. I get "Results 1 - 100 of about 607 for "Knugen Faller". (0.15 seconds)". —Wknight94 (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well I see it saying "Results 1 - 10 of about 9,350 for "Knugen Faller"" -- Astrokey44|talk 05:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: FWIW, I don't see 9k hits from your link - I see 607. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions. -- Rob 08:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I get 607 hits as well from Astrokey's search, and only 270 unique ones. Fails WP:MUSIC. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Zoe. RasputinAXP talk contribs 23:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Zoe. Stifle 15:51, 2 February 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.
