Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polkacide
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 keep. Babajobu 20:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Polkacide
Non-notable band vanity. King of Hearts | (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy deletethis nn-band advertisement. Kusma (討論) 05:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)- Speedy delete nn band Ruby 05:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. Weak keep based on Calton's findings below. Untagged. PJM 05:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)- Speedy Delete per nom.Blnguyen 07:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as per {{nn-band}}. (aeropagitica) 07:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete nn band. --Terence Ong 08:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as non-notable band(see below). —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-25 10:09Z- Keep They've been around for at least 20 years, pretty well-known in the San Francisco Bay Area, have been played on the Doctor Demento Show [1], 11,800 hits on Google (427 listed as unique -- I'm not quite sure that works, since someone on AfD claimed that they only show the first 1,000, which, if true, makes it a 427/1000 batting average), 286 hits on Google Groups, and four in Google Books (including a hit from the The Rough Guide Music USA in 1999). Also, appearances on polka compilations (including this one: see Track 11).
- All this I turned up in about 15 minutes (except the "well-known in the San Francisco Bay Area" -- I already knew it, which is why I bothered to look), so no, they're not a "non-notable band". --Calton | Talk 12:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Could you add that to the article? Technically the article still qualifies as {{nn-band}}, which does not mean that the band is not notable, just that the article does not assert why it is. Also, I still don't believe that the band meets WP:MUSIC. Kusma (討論) 15:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I revised the stub so that it no longer meets A7. Also, I see that they have two albums listed at alllmusic.com. PJM 15:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Don't let the weaknesses inherent in WP:MUSIC dissuade you. If a band is featured on a nationally syndicated radio show, as well as worthy of mention in a notable music guide, it's safe to say a band meets basic notability standards. Expanding A7 was such a poor idea. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- In my view, the A7 expansion has worked out quite well. AFD is no longer crawling with garage band stubs. However, in this case I'm certainly guilty of taking a poorly written stub at face value. I look forward to avoiding this type of oversight in the future. Humbly, PJM 17:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the problem is when bands like this nearly get speedied, and acts like Fiona Sit DO get speedied due to people not doing research before tagging. It doesn't hurt a thing for people to be able to see these acts on AfD - it invariably helps improve the articles to reach notability. But i'm just ranting at this point. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I certainly see your point and by no means do I think there's no risk of human error. But would it not be nice if all users (authors) would take the time to look at the policies and guidelines relating to their subjects before they post articles? That would definitely help eliminate most of the bad taggings. PJM 17:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I said in my RfA that I would be extremely conservative in deleting per nn-band; I always double check, at the very least on allmusic and Amazon, and I think I might have deleted maybe one or two, and those beyond any shadow of doubt. I have untagged as including an assertion of notability far more than I have myself tagged as nn-band. Not everyone is so careful, partly because we trust people to do a check before tagging. But in the end if a band is speedied because of a really bad article which completely fails to let on how important they are, it's really not that big a deal - someone will be along soon with a better one. Of course, that does rely on admins checking db-repost carefully to make sure the content really is similar, and where it is not, untagging. That mop comes with a long stick with which to beat us. Ah well. But in the end, nn-band is a good thing. We really were getting garage bands at the rate of dozens a day sometimes. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C]
AfD? 23:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, when you have an AfD template and a CSD template, it's not easy to see what was deleted so we can make sure the article is an improvement, even in an initial stub size. God forbid we have to go through a deletion process to see if perhaps the people creating garage band articles were not aware of our notability standards, and if the community can actually clean them up. A bit snappy at the newbies, perhaps? I don't know, but when an article like this (and it's not the first and won't be the last) is tagged nn-band incorrectly, the chances of losing the article without many people knowing are greater, and hurts the WP as a result. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Losing a potentially legitimate article that way is unfortunate, but as JzG noted, a truly notable subject will find its way back. I think that's a pretty fair assumption. PJM 14:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- And that we're to the point where we can say "Hey, let's speedy notable articles if we can't gleam notability at a glance, because they'll just come back anyway" shows that we're in a sadder state here than we might be willing to admit. If we spent less time attempting to speedy articles that might be nn and took that time to establish notability, we'd probably be better off, but I'm in a clear minority on that one. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's not how I meant it at all - now you've lost me. I for one do not feel that carefree about it, despite my error in judgement on this one. I can see where you're coming from on this, but speedy deletion is a necessary "evil", if you will. Unless you think going through piles of garbage in AFD, or during a random article browse, is a good thing. PJM 15:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's why I recognize I'm in the minority - I see it as a very good thing for the encyclopedia. It's doubled as a sort of article review in many cases, and that only improves the encyclopedia. Speedying articles willy-nilly because they don't appear to be notable at first glance and because it's easier to throw a tag on than research it isn't an "evil" we should be accepting. I've ranted enough for now, regardless. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's not how I meant it at all - now you've lost me. I for one do not feel that carefree about it, despite my error in judgement on this one. I can see where you're coming from on this, but speedy deletion is a necessary "evil", if you will. Unless you think going through piles of garbage in AFD, or during a random article browse, is a good thing. PJM 15:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- And that we're to the point where we can say "Hey, let's speedy notable articles if we can't gleam notability at a glance, because they'll just come back anyway" shows that we're in a sadder state here than we might be willing to admit. If we spent less time attempting to speedy articles that might be nn and took that time to establish notability, we'd probably be better off, but I'm in a clear minority on that one. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Losing a potentially legitimate article that way is unfortunate, but as JzG noted, a truly notable subject will find its way back. I think that's a pretty fair assumption. PJM 14:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, when you have an AfD template and a CSD template, it's not easy to see what was deleted so we can make sure the article is an improvement, even in an initial stub size. God forbid we have to go through a deletion process to see if perhaps the people creating garage band articles were not aware of our notability standards, and if the community can actually clean them up. A bit snappy at the newbies, perhaps? I don't know, but when an article like this (and it's not the first and won't be the last) is tagged nn-band incorrectly, the chances of losing the article without many people knowing are greater, and hurts the WP as a result. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- I said in my RfA that I would be extremely conservative in deleting per nn-band; I always double check, at the very least on allmusic and Amazon, and I think I might have deleted maybe one or two, and those beyond any shadow of doubt. I have untagged as including an assertion of notability far more than I have myself tagged as nn-band. Not everyone is so careful, partly because we trust people to do a check before tagging. But in the end if a band is speedied because of a really bad article which completely fails to let on how important they are, it's really not that big a deal - someone will be along soon with a better one. Of course, that does rely on admins checking db-repost carefully to make sure the content really is similar, and where it is not, untagging. That mop comes with a long stick with which to beat us. Ah well. But in the end, nn-band is a good thing. We really were getting garage bands at the rate of dozens a day sometimes. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C]
- I certainly see your point and by no means do I think there's no risk of human error. But would it not be nice if all users (authors) would take the time to look at the policies and guidelines relating to their subjects before they post articles? That would definitely help eliminate most of the bad taggings. PJM 17:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the problem is when bands like this nearly get speedied, and acts like Fiona Sit DO get speedied due to people not doing research before tagging. It doesn't hurt a thing for people to be able to see these acts on AfD - it invariably helps improve the articles to reach notability. But i'm just ranting at this point. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- In my view, the A7 expansion has worked out quite well. AFD is no longer crawling with garage band stubs. However, in this case I'm certainly guilty of taking a poorly written stub at face value. I look forward to avoiding this type of oversight in the future. Humbly, PJM 17:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Could you add that to the article? Technically the article still qualifies as {{nn-band}}, which does not mean that the band is not notable, just that the article does not assert why it is. Also, I still don't believe that the band meets WP:MUSIC. Kusma (討論) 15:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Calton's excellent research. --badlydrawnjeff 14:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Calton Flowerparty■ 16:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Calton. Flapdragon 16:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Calton. Carlossuarez46 19:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep: but only because of Dr. Demento. Otherwise, this band is still not exactly overflowing with notability. Two albums in 20 years on allmusic and one unavailable album on Amazon. And it's supposed to be major labels, right? As far as the speedy delete criteria, it's up to the article creator to establish notability, not the deletion nominator. IMHO anyway. I wouldn't lose a second of sleep if I nominated this. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- All valid points on CSD, wknight94...that's certainly the way it should be. But I also see the value in helping those that, for one reason or another, don't help themselves on the Wiki (and I'm no bleeding heart case, believe me). PJM 21:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Calton --OntarioQuizzer 22:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Calton. Good catch. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Calton. I don't think we should be faulted for voting 'speedy delete' initially though, as there was no assertion of notability, even if it is notable. If you saw how many articles did not have to go through AFD you might temper your disapproval of A7 a little. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-26 09:27Z
- I cycle through AfD every morning. I don't vote on everything, but I look at almost every nomination. If it's something that looks more notable than it should be, is it difficult to take a few seconds and hop on Google to verify the articles, and perhaps actually add to them. The A7 expansion encourages lazy voting and denies those of us who might actually want to improve the article an opportunity to work with an already-established article as opposed to starting from scratch and possibly having someone speedy the recreation again out of turn. Too many articles get deleted through AfD that shouldn't be already, why allow for more of them to be deleted without an opportunity for improvement by people who wouldn't notice them otherwise? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- (Replied on User talk:Badlydrawnjeff —Quarl (talk)
- I cycle through AfD every morning. I don't vote on everything, but I look at almost every nomination. If it's something that looks more notable than it should be, is it difficult to take a few seconds and hop on Google to verify the articles, and perhaps actually add to them. The A7 expansion encourages lazy voting and denies those of us who might actually want to improve the article an opportunity to work with an already-established article as opposed to starting from scratch and possibly having someone speedy the recreation again out of turn. Too many articles get deleted through AfD that shouldn't be already, why allow for more of them to be deleted without an opportunity for improvement by people who wouldn't notice them otherwise? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 13:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Calton. -- DS1953 talk 03:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Keep expand --Addie 15:11, 30 January 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.
