Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Rose Movement
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. — JIP | Talk 18:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] White Rose Movement
A newly formed band that appears to have released just one single; doesn't meet any notability criterion. Hoary 03:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Notability is not a criterion for deletion. Please read the deletion policy. Keep this article. Grace Note 07:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: And non-notability isn't a criterion for deletion either. Yes, I've reread the deletion policy, and I've also read Notability and Music Guidelines. This band doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria listed there. Now, these are of course "merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion". I'm one of these editors. Perhaps you aren't. If you aren't, what rules of thumb do you use? Or to put it another way, what's your reason for a "keep" vote? -- Hoary 08:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- What's my reason for a "keep" vote? I don't think the article should be deleted. It's verifiable and about a real subject. That's enough to be included in the "sum of all human knowledge" in my books. -- Grace Note.
- And by the way, don't snidely correct my English. If I meant to write "non-notability" I would have done. -- Grace Note.
- Comment: Lack of any assertion of notability is already a speedy deletion criterion where people are concerned, so it's only logical to apply it to groups of people (in this case bands). Instead of arguing notability isn't a criterion, it's better to argue why this particular band should be kept based on its own merits. - Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why exactly you feel justified in haranguing me. I clearly don't agree that it's better to argue the merits of this particular band, because I think all verifiable bands should be included in Wikipedia. I think "notability" means no more, no less than "I do or don't value this subject" and your valuation is meaningless to me if I do not share your system of value (and you cannot expect all of your potential readers to share it), whereas an objective standard, represented by verifiability, is meaningful.--Grace Note.
- That seems a reasonable enough point of view, but: (i) I disagree with your interpretation of "notability", as for example I don't value (let's say) Paris Hilton but acknowledge that the media do and for this reason (as well perhaps as others) think that she's notable; (ii) there seems no incompatibility between a demand for verifiability and a demand for notability; and (iii) Notability and Music Guidelines are, well, guidelines for decisions about the worthiness of articles on bands -- guidelines that may be wrong (and that can be challenged by you) but that nevertheless exist. -- Hoary 10:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why exactly you feel justified in haranguing me. I clearly don't agree that it's better to argue the merits of this particular band, because I think all verifiable bands should be included in Wikipedia. I think "notability" means no more, no less than "I do or don't value this subject" and your valuation is meaningless to me if I do not share your system of value (and you cannot expect all of your potential readers to share it), whereas an objective standard, represented by verifiability, is meaningful.--Grace Note.
- Comment: And non-notability isn't a criterion for deletion either. Yes, I've reread the deletion policy, and I've also read Notability and Music Guidelines. This band doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria listed there. Now, these are of course "merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion". I'm one of these editors. Perhaps you aren't. If you aren't, what rules of thumb do you use? Or to put it another way, what's your reason for a "keep" vote? -- Hoary 08:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as, well, non-notable. Dottore So 10:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Please give a reason that accords with the deletion policy.--Grace Note.
- Delete - nn (sorry, Grace...) CLW 15:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Normally, saying that an article should be deleted because it's "non-notable" would elicit a keep vote from me -- but the idea that someone is trying to ride to fame on the coattails of the White Rose Society repulses me. Hate me for being a sentimental hypocrite, but please Delete. -- llywrch 00:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: names are now so silly, and sensationalism is so crass and pervasive, that while I appreciate your PoV I actually find it slightly refreshing that a band would name itself after an anti-Nazi group. Or anyway it beats "New Order", in my very jaded and perhaps underinformed opinion. -- Hoary 02:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and create a redirect to White Rose to discourage future band vanity. Youngamerican 02:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete NN --Rogerd 06:14, 20 October 2005 (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.
