Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audio Disturbances

Add links
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 - Peripitus (Talk) 11:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Disturbances[edit]

Audio Disturbances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable band. No evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. BRMo (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentBut he ISN'T particularly notable. The only bands that he has been in with wikipedia pages are both nominated for deletion. Besides, Lazo doesn't have anything notable enough that I can see to transfer notability to the band. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 17:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lazo is non-notable, and currently under AFD. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with the above. I believe that Lazo (and his bands) ARE notable.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep as per above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.220.253 (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Clearly the same as User:72.153.220.189 above. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep per above reasons. --Fsl dude (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above. Rwiggum clearly has little knowledge of WP notability standards.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, I think that you're the one with a poor understanding of Wikipedia's notability standards. Lazo's article's only assertion of notability is that he has been in bands with notable people. According to WP:PEOPLE, "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)" More information on this can be found Here. Also, according to WP:MUSIC, "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." Clearly, this is also a criterion that Mr. Lazo does not meet. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, for the most part, you have proven my point. (But, is this discussion about Lazo, or Audio Disturbances?)--70.156.170.194 (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, considering that the primary argument for keeping this article is that Lazo is notable, then the fact that Lazo is, in fact, NOT notable is rather apropo to the discussion. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Sheryl Crow said, "It's apropo of nothing...". Not only has Lazo been shown to be notable, but Google searches will show that Schweizer and Alexandrakis are also quite notable. I really have to believe that, if at least 75% of the members of a band are notable (even if just barely), then the band, in question, IS notable. (WP MUSIC says so.) It's clear and is an "open/shut" case, as far as I can see. I really can't see how you would believe otherwise. It is only being counterproductive...towards me, yourself, this band, its members and WP, itself.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep per above.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Duplicate !vote. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • WHEN was Lazo shown to be notable? You keep saying that he has been "shown to be notable", but you've never said why. Also, a google search for "Eric Alezandrakis" provides very little notable content. Most of the results are self-published resources or lyrics sites. I was unable to find any reliable articles on him. Also, remember that Number of Google hits" is not a valid argument for or against an article's existence. Also, Please stop responding to your own contributions. AfD proceedings are not a pure vote, so adding responses and additional votes to your own posts will not help your cause. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have proven my point. Why are you even commenting on music related entries? What qualifies you? Educate yourself first. Please don't F##k up WP for the rest of us. I am sorry if this offends you. I don't mean it that way, but don't you have other things you could be doing (on WP, or elsewhere) which would be constructive?--70.156.170.194 (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure if you're even reading my entries. How am I proving your point? You are simply stating unverified claims and expecting them to stand as arguments. I'd be happy to change my vote to keep, but only once someone can provide reliable sources in order to verify why the band is notable. Until then, my vote remains. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry. I'm done. This is absurd.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Audio_Disturbances&oldid=1142968104"