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.
A year ago, I boldly redirected this to
Big Pharma conspiracy theory#Hidden cancer cure, and this redirect was just reverted. I don't see any way that this will meet notability. Three of the sources merely name-drop this band while being about something else, and the fourth source is their own web page. I recommend restoring the redirect
Oiyarbepsy (
talk)
05:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)reply
KEEP Come on man, did you do any research on this band before nominating it? Not notable? Really? There's no doubt that the article is poorly written, formatted and sourced. It needs a complete rewrite. But I remember this band from when they were active and they were a high-profile act. They had coverage in big magazines and toured with some big bands (I don't mean being a one-off local opening band for a national act; I mean they were out and on the road as part of package tours with bands of notability). Their releases were put out by some big labels too and had a lot of coverage. I just spent a short hour doing very basic online research on the band and came up with a bunch of things validating their notability.
-Point 2: there are 172
results published in CMJ relevant to the band. Granted, most of them are trivial radio airplay mentions, but 19 of them are very good and usable, like album reviews, chart ratings and announcements of album release and show dates. It's very hard to get a review in CMJ. This alone shows that the band was notable enough at the time to be on Wikipedia.
Keep per the sources enumerated in point 3 of Bricks & Wood's comment, although I take exception to their indignation expressed towards the nominator and their insistence that editors spend up to an hour performing a
WP:BEFORE. signed, Rosguilltalk14:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)reply
I apologize for coming off as indignant. I was just surprised, but I'm not angry and have no resentment. I also apologize for any implications at editors' duties, that certainly was not my intention. I mean no offence to anyone.--
Bricks&Woodtalk18:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment I was told something similar in another AfD; I'm not here to argue with you as to why your sources are good and I've suggested others, but I'm not doing a line-by-line analysis of the sources; this frankly isn't that important to me. I'll withdraw my vote completely. No skin off my back if this gets kept or deleted. I've thrown in my two cents, but I'm not going to die on this hill.
Oaktree b (
talk)
21:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Very Weak Keep Some of the sources appear to hold up the point, but I'm not here to re-invent the wheel/validate them in depth. Article seems fringe-based to my plebe eyes, I'm of no fixed opinion otherwise.
Oaktree b (
talk)
21:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. There are substantial content issues with the page, but I don't think they're insurmountable and
WP:DEL-CONTENT commands that we not delete articles when ordinary editing can fix issues within them. The sources identified by
Bricks&Wood show that the band is notable and are more than enough to improve the page. —
Ⓜ️hawk10 (
talk)
03:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
A year ago, I boldly redirected this to
Big Pharma conspiracy theory#Hidden cancer cure, and this redirect was just reverted. I don't see any way that this will meet notability. Three of the sources merely name-drop this band while being about something else, and the fourth source is their own web page. I recommend restoring the redirect
Oiyarbepsy (
talk)
05:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)reply
KEEP Come on man, did you do any research on this band before nominating it? Not notable? Really? There's no doubt that the article is poorly written, formatted and sourced. It needs a complete rewrite. But I remember this band from when they were active and they were a high-profile act. They had coverage in big magazines and toured with some big bands (I don't mean being a one-off local opening band for a national act; I mean they were out and on the road as part of package tours with bands of notability). Their releases were put out by some big labels too and had a lot of coverage. I just spent a short hour doing very basic online research on the band and came up with a bunch of things validating their notability.
-Point 2: there are 172
results published in CMJ relevant to the band. Granted, most of them are trivial radio airplay mentions, but 19 of them are very good and usable, like album reviews, chart ratings and announcements of album release and show dates. It's very hard to get a review in CMJ. This alone shows that the band was notable enough at the time to be on Wikipedia.
Keep per the sources enumerated in point 3 of Bricks & Wood's comment, although I take exception to their indignation expressed towards the nominator and their insistence that editors spend up to an hour performing a
WP:BEFORE. signed, Rosguilltalk14:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)reply
I apologize for coming off as indignant. I was just surprised, but I'm not angry and have no resentment. I also apologize for any implications at editors' duties, that certainly was not my intention. I mean no offence to anyone.--
Bricks&Woodtalk18:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment I was told something similar in another AfD; I'm not here to argue with you as to why your sources are good and I've suggested others, but I'm not doing a line-by-line analysis of the sources; this frankly isn't that important to me. I'll withdraw my vote completely. No skin off my back if this gets kept or deleted. I've thrown in my two cents, but I'm not going to die on this hill.
Oaktree b (
talk)
21:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Very Weak Keep Some of the sources appear to hold up the point, but I'm not here to re-invent the wheel/validate them in depth. Article seems fringe-based to my plebe eyes, I'm of no fixed opinion otherwise.
Oaktree b (
talk)
21:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep. There are substantial content issues with the page, but I don't think they're insurmountable and
WP:DEL-CONTENT commands that we not delete articles when ordinary editing can fix issues within them. The sources identified by
Bricks&Wood show that the band is notable and are more than enough to improve the page. —
Ⓜ️hawk10 (
talk)
03:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)reply
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.