Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Crowd

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 all. Jaranda wat's sup 00:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Young Crowd, Larry "LaPret" Pretlow II, KieArra 'Mizz Redz" Pretlow

A nice collection of articles about a teenage group, detailing their notable record company, and their platinum-selling single. Only problem is that none of it seems to hold up. All I can actually find on these people is a myspace page. Fan-1967 17:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Corrections Made I am in the process of trying to remove the KieArra 'Mizz Redz" Pretlow page. I have removed the incorrect information from the remaining two articles and I ask that you forgive me of my actions. I thought that So So Def Recordings housed Young Crowd but it turns out to be Kilah World Entertainment.

I was also notified that I was given non-official information pretaining to the "Da Starting 5" single.

Therefore I have made the corrections in order to keep these (2) pages/articles open.

~Dontrell Mc Bride~ Writer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngcrowd (talk • contribs)

  • Comment With the incorrect information removed, there is nothing left to assert that these people meet the WP:MUSIC standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. "Kilah World Entertainment" likewise does not appear to exist beyond a myspace page. Fan-1967 17:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete all as nonnotable. NawlinWiki 17:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Young Crowd's official website www.young-crowd.com also links from its own myspace. Young Crowd is a real music group with an upcoming Nation-Wide (USA) Mixtape Release on October 10, 2006.

If you still wish for the mention of KILAH WORLD ENTERTAINMENT to be deleted, I will do so. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngcrowd (talk • contribs) Dontrell McBride - Writer 18:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Whether Kilah is deleted or not looks like it won't matter in the slightest. Please review the standards at WP:MUSIC. An upcoming release on a label that has no other acts, and whose website is on a free site like cabspace.com, doesn't even remotely come close to those standards. Fan-1967 18:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

After review of the rules, can the mention of the label remain in the articles of Young Crowd and Larry "LaPret" Pretlow II

I have read the presented regulations and I again ask to be forgiven. I fully understand that as far as certification goes KILAH WORLD ENTERTAINMENT cannot be proven to be a real label. Please note that it is a independent label located in D.C. they have severala acts who perform locally and also have local airplay of their singles in D.C.

I ask that these 2 articles not be deleted because they would really be of aid to both the careers of [Young Crowd]] and Larry "LaPret" Pretlow II. Both artist are preparing to sign professional recording deals and release professional singles. Just having an article on WIKIPEDIA regarding their carrers thus far would be a tremendous aspect of their Nation-Wide promotion. Thanks! Dontrell McBride - Writer 19:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm sorry, you don't seem to understand. KILAH is not the issue. There is, at this point, zero chance of any of these articles not being deleted. Wikipedia does not provide free webspace to help unknown performers gain exposure. Fan-1967 19:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

We're not using Wikipedia for Exposure

You misundersdtood what I'm saying. Young Crowd is currently touring the USA promoting their mixtape release on local radio. They also are conducting performances and youth speeches. The mixtape will be a nation-wide release just like a Beyonce album. Young Crowd is just signed with an independent label. Each day that passes more and more people become familiar with Young Crowd and their music. It would only be fair to allow the Young Crowd and LaPret articles to be aprt of the Wikipedia these teenagers are doing something that has not been done and its worthy of being one of the millions of articles featured on this website. Dontrell McBride - Writer 19:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thing is that this page has been up for almost a month and today when I edit it all of a sudden it has to be deleted.

  • Go back and read WP:MUSIC again. Does Young Crowd have at least two releases from a major label (already released, not coming)? Are they the subject of numerous articles in the press? There are thousands of bands who are going to release a CD and hope that it will be successful. Until they have actually achieved some level of attention, they do not qualify for an article here. (The fact that the article was there for a month before being noticed is irrelevant.) Fan-1967 19:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not fair, for YOUNG CROWD to not be allowed to have a page on WIKIPEDIA

These teenagers who have choosen not to be elsewhere drinking and smoking can't even get a page on a website that features artist and their accomplsihments. They are nor just one of these "thousands" of other bands you spoke of. Dontrell McBride - Writer 20:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngcrowd (talk • contribs)

  • Delete All per nom. Fails WP:Music. Nuf said. Maybe some day they will be notable. Good Luck.--Nick Y. 20:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All - There has to be a line. Not being included on Wikipedia is not an insult and being included is not a compliment. - Richfife 21:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I will contact the PRESS/MEDIA I don't think that fair to have a site displaying musicians and their accomplishments and not featured them in their prime!!! I will consider contacting the media and press outlets. WIKIPEDIA should not be allowed to function in that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngcrowd (talk • contribs)

  • Comment While you are at it perhaps you should bring the media and the public up to speed on the unfair practices of encyclopedia brittanica. Wikipedia is much more inclusive. I'd like to see you change britanica's inclusion standards based on public outrage over the exclusion of young crowd.--Nick Y. 23:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - "Wikipedia should not be allowed?" Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It hosts pages that (nominally) are about important or notable events, people, places, etc. Whether or not you feel that it is fair, according to the agreed upon rules, this band does not qualify as notable. I'm sorry that you disagree, you can petition for a change in the rules if you want. --PresN 21:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete When they are famous and notable, we can get an article for it. Until then, the articles, and the image made with Microsoft Word and paint need to go for failing musical-related inclusion standards. To the author & band: Read my first sentence again. Kevin_b_er 23:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. None of them are verifiably notable. -- Mikeblas 02:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All - fails WP:MUSIC. Tychocat 07:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All The Young Crowd article contains a claim to have an international release of a single, but offers no verification nor a basis for verification (no title for the single). If it has done a tour, the WP:BAND standard is "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources." As no sources are used, this test is failed. As far as I can see, all of the tests in WP:BAND are failed. In fact, as no sources are used in any of the articles, WP:NOR is failed. The Young Crowd article is also signed, in violation of WP:OWN. The "Wikipedia should not be allowed" argument above demonstrates a lack of understanding of the WP:NOT rules. These articles violate multiple rules withing that policy including 1) not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site, 2) not a soapbox, 3) not a publisher of original thought. Given the username of the author, I also have WP:VAIN concerns, but upon seeing his signature I don't currently have any WP:AUTO concerns. GRBerry 17:03, 12 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.