Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wasted

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, discounting votes from new voters. Sorry, AfD is not about vote counting. Deathphoenix ʕ 06:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Wasted

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Fails the allmusic test. Article, I think, mentions only one debut album and reads like an advertisement for them and the other bands listed. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why I Listed the Wasted and Believe They Belong (updated by Gnhn 12:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

1. The career track record of Stephen Gaylord: while the Wasted only have one full-length and one EP to their credit thus far, this band is the current outlet for his recorded work, which includes four albums with Beef (a couple released and recorded on "major indie" labels) and four other albums with other bands. Beef was written up in "Entertainment Weekly," and Gaylord's a cult songwriter whose work has been covered by others.

2. I also was trying to tap the element of a net phenomena associated with the band which has a large reach. I have removed that element from the listing since it probably belongs more as a net meme thing than part of a band listing.

3. I have been a print music critic in the Upstate New York market for ~15 years. This is the most impressive/important band and songwriter I've seen the community produce during that time.

4. I am in no way affiliated or associated with the band or the other bands mentioned, other than as a community observer. They didn't ask me to list them, and I'm not part of their promotional team.

5. The Wasted/Stephen Gaylord meet this Wiki Music Standard: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city." In Albany, the "Upstate Wasted Bands" community (with the Wasted at the top of the heap) is well organized, well respected, and well known, and draws as well as anything else in the market.

6. This reference, Wasted in Village Voice Pazz & Jop, demonstrates how seriously I take this band as a music critic and contributor to one of the more influential American music polls. I'm not spamming WP with bands. I'm not trying to sell anything for the Wasted. I am documenting an important artist, as I have done before in other media.

Therefore I respectfully vote . . .

  • Do Not Delete --Gnhn 14:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Astrokey44|talk 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom until better notability established. --MacRusgail 18:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete Page does not violate any of the official policy directives listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT. A pertinent quote from this page states; "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." Therefore, I am confused as to why certain topics, such as this one, which are verifiable and meet all other standards listed, have any reason to be eliminated other than those personal or otherwise prejudicial. I am unfamiliar with the 'allmusic test'; and have not been able to find any evidence that it refers to any official Wikipedia Policy. --Ksonin 03:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    User's first edit. (see Special:Contributions/Ksonin) -- Krash (Talk) 20:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete I am not sure I understand the "allmusic test". I'm a new member here and haven't been able to find a reference to this rule. Is it an informal one? (Could someone link to this rule from this page?) I agree with Gnhn regarding the artist's importance. The band is one of the most influential New York state artists north of New York City. The original Wikipedia article states that the artist's website is an, "important and influence-wielding online outlet for the New York Capital Region's underground and independent music community." References to the bands popularity in the Capital District, which has a population of about 800,000, abound. The largest alternative weekly in the area, The Metroland, has covered this band again and again. A recent cover story on the band can be found here: http://www.metroland.net/back_issues/vol28_no48/listen_here.html. In support of the "net phenomena" Gnhn discusses, the band's website (the stats are not password protected) has had 2,442,765 hits in the past year. I should add that, like Gnhn, I am not part of the band's promotional team. I live in the Capital Region and discovered the band through Stephen Gaylord's other projects (particularly through Beef). Jim Germaine 05:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    User's first edit. (see Special:Contributions/Jim_Germaine) -- Krash (Talk) 20:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment As I noted on your talk page, see WP:MUSIC for the relevant notability criteria. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have replied to your comment on my talk page. Thanks again.Jim Germaine 05:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 14:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up." --This is elitist and offensive. Just because I haven't posted here often and am not part of the 'community' by these standards does not make my opinions any less valid nor my arguments any less credible.Ksonin 03:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment I agree with Ksonin's comment, and I certainly did not come here because some one instructed me to do so. I haven't joined/commented before because I'd never seen an article about to be deleted. I became a member to weigh in on the argument for keeping The Wasted article up. How is adding my two cents contrary to the spirit of this discussion? Clarification would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.-- Jim Germaine 05:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

CommentThe Village Voice list mention that Gnhn linked to seems pretty impressive to me. The Voice is not on the 'major music media' list, but you have to be fairly important to make the Pazz & Jop Critic's Poll. If you're not that familiar with The Village Voice, I don't think it's a stretch to say that it's to alternative weeklies what The New York Times is to major daily papers. (Unlike other weekly papers, you can pick up The Voice in other states and countries.) The fact that this critic is able to post his list there speaks for his authority in musical matters. And appeal to authority is what your listing guidelines are about in large part. I'd also note that it's the Village Voice that's often quoted in bands' press kits and web pages. Some of the other publications you list -- Exclaim! for instance -- are not nearly as selective. <a href="http://www.pitchforkmedia.com">Pitchfork</a> (which most certainly should be listed) or Spin or Rolling Stone, along with The Voice, have a reputation for noting remarkable bands.--Jim Germaine 16:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)208.139.7.64 15:54, 28 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.