Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lair of the Minotaur

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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 21:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lair of the Minotaur

Non notable band, attempted CSDA7 and was rejected MECU≈talk 20:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Possible bad faith nomination, as someone clearly has something against Southern Lord Records (see user's other nominations and mass-tagging (almost tag per minute) with {{db-a7}}). From user's reply on my talk page: I was asked by an admin on IRC to go through Southern Lord Records and mark the ones I didn't feel made it. Many of the speedy tags added by this user were ridiculous and might have qualified for abuse of tags. [1] [2] [3] Seems like a case of Wikipedia:Speedy keep. I'll try to reference these articles later, but there are 18 of them so it will take some time. Prolog 20:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with these nominations does not mean there is bad faith involved.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I mentioned above, "possible". The speedy tags suggested systematic tagging of this record label's bands' articles without even reading them, and then these Afd nominations came equally as fast and as direct copy-paste work: Non notable band, attempted CSDA7 and was rejected. Even a person was nominated for deletion as "Non-notable band". Prolog 22:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Systematic without reading? Most of these don't have much TO read! This is the second time today I've been accused of being a bot. I normally don't take offense to things, but this "possible bad faith nom" is not appropriate, especially given the prior discussion that I've had with the user. --MECU≈talk 22:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You said that this deletion-tagging for articles related to this record label originated from an IRC conversation. You did not mention why this record label, which administrator proposed such a move and why, et cetera. Tagging any of these band articles for speedy deletion is not appropriate, because releasing albums on that label is already an assertion of notability. I assume good faith on your part, but there are no diffs to IRC queries and I'm not willing to assume blind faith. Considering these circumstances, adding a note about possible bad faith involved was a proper action. Prolog 23:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Then what is the proper action for nominating a article for CSD and having it removed? Either prod or AFD right? The IRC isn't relevant to why I'm here (other than a basic starting motivation). I'm here because I choose to CSD these articles and then AFD them after the CSD was rejected. I take full actions for my choices and as such, the IRC is now a moot point. --MECU≈talk 23:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, speedy keep is not appropriate since it does not meet the speedy keep guideline for the following reasons: 1) I want the pages deleted, I have not withdrawn my nomination, 2) This is not vandalism or disruption. 3) I am not banned. 4) The article it not currently linked from the main page. Any votes as such are not appropriate. --MECU≈talk 00:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Afd is appropriate, but "Non notable band" does not say much, especially if it is copy-pasted to over dozen nominations by a script. For example, this band meets #4 of WP:MUSIC, so why is it "non notable"? [4] It does not matter whether you take the responsibility for your tagging/nominating, the fact is someone asked you to target this record label and did so outside Wikipedia. Prolog 01:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

My original comment stands. Bringing up bad faith is still not so great, even if you preface it with the word "possible." AfDs are FULL of editors accusing one another of bad faith - let's not add to the fray!-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If an administrator asks a user on IRC to go through a notable record label's bands and tag some of them for speedy deletion, I can see only two reasons for that; the admin does not understand CSD, which is unlikely, or he is not acting in good faith. The circumstances are dubious. 18/29 of Southern Lord Records' bands were tagged, including this and this. I'm not a fan of bad faith either, but this is enough to justify suspicions. Prolog 01:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - Not having enough infomation is not a reason to delete an article. It's only a reason to expand and enhance it. dposse 23:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 07:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Appears to meet WP:MUSIC by having 3 albums released; however, it would be helpful to have some of the other notability criteria (such as tours) listed in the article. SkierRMH,07:00, 15 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.