Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usurp Synapse

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 discussion was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usurp Synapse

Non notable, non-NPOV bandcruft, appears to be a puff piece for this band, no semblence of any notability. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 22:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Being a little lazy here, or just a bit of a snob? Thousands upon thousands of Google hits for this band, definitely a notable band in its genre. Article needs cleanup, sources, etc., but is worthy of inclusion. PT 23:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll remind you of no personal attacks and to refrain from making comments such as the above which constitute personal attacks. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Not being lazy here - actually 400 unique Ghits, not "thousands upon thousands", sorry.--DaveG12345 02:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not really sure what you did there, but I have doubts the process is doing what you think it is. Following the same process, Nickleback gets 605 hits, Gnarls Barkley gets 706, and the Dixie Chicks get 677. OzLawyer 15:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment AfD them all!!! ;-) In truth, "unique" hits doesn't mean there aren't more hits, it's a Google filtering system kicking in that removes "similar" hits. WP:GOOG is just a rough rule of thumb, except that you'd expect notable websites etc. to have more than a handful of hits if they're "notable". For a band, Ghits on their own don't mean a lot, except that they can quickly verify whether an act actually exists, and they can obviously tell you the types of sites referencing the band - reliable music sites and reviewers = good, obscure forums and blogs generally not-so-good. WP:GOOG is a technique that's been the subject of a lot of debate, and is not even a WP guideline. I was just having a joke about Parsssseltongue's "lazy" comments above, really. :-)--DaveG12345 17:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. No entry on discogs.com. If the "slew of EPs" (non-self released) claim can be substantiated, then change to keep. OzLawyer 23:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity NN --Macarion 00:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, only if the information on the page is cleaned up. They aren't very influential, but still a big enough band(in the hardcore/screamo underground) to get an entry.--Toddd 15:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless record relreases are verified. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have cleaned up the article, providing verifiable references to their releases and tours. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 19:16, 10 July 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.