Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MC Dope

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 was delete. Bucketsofg 00:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MC Dope

MC Dope (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  • Delete or userify. Non-notable artist. Has released no albums. De-proded by author, who is also the subject of the article. eaolson 02:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. And what if i am a non-notable artist. At least i am an artist! And i said my album will be ready for sale when the time comes. I am promoting my work on here! Nothing is wrong with promotion! You know why? Because its everywhere! Advertisements, commercial, newspapers, movies, everywhere! I beleive i have the right to have this page. And if not, you should delete Eaolsons page because i never heard of this guy. He's not known to me, so he should be deleted too. Mcdope_2x 02:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Above post speaks for itself. Euphonic 02:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I would just like to say how the "keep" vote gives more creedence to why it should be deleted than kept. delete per-non-notable rapper.--Tainter 03:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly unnotable. Herostratus 03:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  •  :: You clearly cant even state another reason why to delete it. Instead you just go, "i agree with this guy". Wikipedia wouldnt even be what it is if no one made unknown articles on here. How do we even know some of you hate rap and just want to delete it because of that? Or maybe you have something against mexicans? And i am not stating an issue over race right now, but some of you exceed your own rights on this website so dont even act like youre the innocent. All of you are hypocritical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcdope 2x (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and WP:SALT given tenacity of creator. Natalie 03:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and salt per CSD A7 and WP:COI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sable232 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Fine. if it makes you feel any more superior, delete the page. Go on, just do it. cuz thats all you can do. i tried reasoning with you but you had to act like a bitch. so do what you want to do, ok, cuz i dont give a shit anymore of what your decision is. Whatever i say is not gonna change it. i already see how many of you say "delete" so there is no more of a point to argue in said argument... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcdope_2x (talk • contribs).
  • Does the above count towards G7 - author requests deletion? Natalie 03:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7. Only notability assertion is Myspace, and per the author's request, we'll be happy to delete it for you if that's the way you feel. --Dennisthe2 05:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete quickly or slowly. Promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mcdope_2x, this is an advertisement. Maxamegalon2000 06:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow...isnt this kind of pathetic. You actually have to have a board of administrators to decide whether to remove an article from a damn website..this isnt the supreme court no matter how much you want it to be. Its just stupid that you have to have a debate whether to 'keep' or 'delete' something...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.83.6.10 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
We're not all administrators, in fact most of us aren't. The reason we have to agree on whether to delete things is so that someone doesn't go around deleting all the important articles like Philosophy and Science and Fish and that sort of thing – Qxz 06:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well those types of thins should be protected. You guys have the power to put something to protect a type of article of being protected. Everyone else should have their type of articles though. And if at any point it offends somebody, maybe it should be deleted.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.83.6.10 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, if you want an article here at Wikipedia, it needs to follow the guidelines for Wikipedia. This article, as has been demonstrated here, fails to do this. To be blunt, ranting about it and demanding what you think you are entitled to is not going to change our minds - providing a neutral article with verifiable notability claims will, and following the guidelines about music would be a big plus. If you can't do this, my !vote stands. If you feel otherwise and it gets removed, take it to deletion review. This is a procedure that everyone using Wikipedia must follow, and there are no exceptions to this policy. --Dennisthe2 19:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails to meet notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia (at this time). Mcdope_2x, please dont take this personally - all articles on Wikipedia are subject to guidelines which warrant (or not) their inclusion. You may also like to look over WP:AUTO & WP:COI re: adding articles to which you are some extent involved. Wikipedia's not for advertising or promotion - it's an encyclopedia. The author also left a comment re: the articles deletion on my talk page which may be relevant to the deletion debate. MidgleyDJ 07:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. MC Dope? More like MC Lame. He is a moron who has no idea how the world works. Let's silence this guys mic. --MikeHunt35 15:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails to meet notability guidelines, WP:COI, self-promotion. The album is not even released yet, so for now there is no assertion of notability. Terence Ong 17:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO.-- danntm T C 20:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, right now, i am sort of agreeing with all of you. But dont you guys think you apply too many rules here? You have like the most absurd rules out there.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.6.10 (talk • contribs)
    • Simple answer: no. More complex answer: we're pretty much trying to maintain a standard here, and while those rules are a bit on the stringent side on the surface, said rules give that standard a basis - so in short, there's a method to the madness. --Dennisthe2 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. If we didn't have these kinds of rules, we'd have 12 million articles, 10.5 million of them spammy articles on companies, articles reading "so-and-so is sooooo gay lol" and tens of thousands of high school garage bands. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes thats true. But you guys can have that right to delete anything offensive, like i said before. If theres anything claiming that type of stuff on their page, it has the right to be deleted. And for the garage bands thing, that would be good for the website. It could show which ones are in what area of the city, country, etc. And some people have heard of small ones that are just performing at fairs, and maybe they ant to know more about the band. And some people cant afford to make their own websites, and basically if this is a free encyclopedia, they would at least put up their page right here while trying to makeing their own and they would eventually delete this one. Just give everyone a chance. And if somebody keeps overdoing their rights, they lose the privelage of making anything at all or everyone loses it instead and it goes back to the way it was in the beginning. What have you guys got to lose? I know that before maybe you guys had that feeling to promote a little something when you started this yourself. And since you couldnt, instead you just stuck with the rules. Like everyone says, rules are made to be broken. Whats the danger in doing that right now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.6.10 (talk • contribs)
    • I certainly acknowledge that we have a clause about ignoring all rules, and certainly you're right - rules are definitely made to be broken. But this is one of those cases that would violate the spirit of that link. To respond point by point to you, though: Wikipedia is not censored, so offensive material will be found. Garage bands and the like must still adhere to WP:MUSIC, and therein WP:LOCAL comes into play too. Making a website is easy - HTML is not hard, and there are sites that let you publish for free; Wikipedia is not such a site, it is not a means for a band to get their name out. What we have to lose is the integrity that we continually strive to maintain, and by allowing advertisements of this fashion, we lose that integrity. --Dennisthe2 20:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Or yet u can come to be a bigger known website...an encyclopedia that contains pratically everything ever... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.6.10 (talk • contribs)
    • I'm not sure that this would be Wikipedia's goal. --Dennisthe2 03:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Never hurts to expand something u never thought of in the first place...its like life: you always add another goal to it.
  • Delete for non-notability per WP:BIO. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per failing WP:MUSIC, failing WP:V, failing WP:COI. The Rambling Man 13:07, 31 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.