Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collapse (band)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse (band)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND. Singularity42 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related articles because they were created by the same author at the same time, and are directly related to each other:

Singularity42 (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Rather than commenting here, the author has commented on all three talk pages. I have suggested that the editor contribute to the discussion here, but I'm not sure if that will be followed up on. I would suggest reviewing editors/adminstrators read those talk page comments as well so the author's position is known. Singularity42 (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All three articles meet all criteria and can be verified by multiple sources.The individual/band and company can all be contacted (and have been).The authenticity of all three articles are NOT in question.

www.officialcollapse.com

www.forwardregression.com

www.myspace.com/officialcollapse

www.myspace.com/jasonjamesmackenzie

www.myspace.com/forwardregression

The artists material have been available since 2006 globally. The facts are not in question.The notice has been contested and will continue to be contested until all facts are verifted if necessary. Impaled666 (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please state with examples what is missing from the articles.All facts are easily verifable and are obviously not in question. Many wiki pages regarding Artists/Companies/Individuals contain less information and these are easily verifable and all parties can be contacted.Impaled666 (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I cannot find any independent coverage of any of the articles listed. Everything seems to either be a promotional site or a social networking page. Rnb (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Wiki guidelines:

"Wikipedia:Notability (people)"

Basic criteria A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6] Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

Entertainers Shortcuts: WP:ENT WP:ENTERTAINER

Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3.Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.

The article for the individual meet the criteria laid out in the Wiki guidelines,as well as the criteria for the band and label since all are releated.The verifiability is not in question. Impaled666 (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Search Google collapse destroying by design

Pages upon pages of enteries

Impaled666 (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metal archives Collapse entry: http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=42703

Impaled666 (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search using Google and didn't find that any of the results met Wikipedia's policy for reliable sources. It looks like the Metal Archives page above allows anyone who registers to submit information and it doesn't seem particularly compelling for establishing notability. Rnb (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide what your definition of relabile sources are?The existence of the artist,band, company are not in question.Impaled666 (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is questioning their existence, just their notability. As linked above, the guidelines for reliable sources are available here. Rnb (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on how well the band is known & how widespread it is on the internet for secondary sources,I would say they are notable.Impaled666 (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they're well known and notable, surely they have had magazine and newspaper articles written about them? Those would go a long way toward establishing notability, but I can't find any. Rnb (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Impaled should read WP:RS and WP:N in regards to our notability and reliable sourcing policies. This article does not meet our notability guidelines, and the sources provided (or any I could find) are not reliable sources from an independent third party. Angryapathy (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you all take a good look at the entire death metal music spectrum covered on wiki because many other artists listed meet less criteria and your open DISCRIMINNATION against our business will not go unnoticed going forward.Many artists are not covered on the internet,not all magazines are scanned into the internet.Even if the entry is deleted, we will have it relisted until it appears permenantly.The artist is not new however the company is,and does exist and you arguments are nothing less than hypocrisical and disriminatory. Impaled666 (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you continually re-add it, it will continually be deleted and you will be blocked indefinitely. It's not about discrimination. It's about WP:MUSIC and Wikipedia being an encyclopedia. Joe Chill (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated discussion about difference between PROD and AfD. Does not belong here.

Wiki guidelines state we are allowed to contest and delete the proposed deletion notice.If we get blocked,we will move up the appeal process at Wiki until it is rectified.Do not remove our contestion block,we are allowed to post that.Do not vandalize our enteries.We are also allowed to delete the deletion proposal notice but it was continually readded,if you keep breaking Wiki guidelines we will file a complaint against the users in question Impaled666 (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets deleted, you have to take it to WP:DRV. Which all of the articles in this AfD most likely won't be restored. If they aren't and you recreate it repeatedly, they will all be speedy deleted and you will be blocked. Whatever you do won't help if you don't show how they pass the notability guideline. Joe Chill (talk)

STOP EDITING OUR PAGE WE ARE WORKING ON IT.WE ARE ALLOWED TO ADD THIS BLOCK:

This page was proposed for deletion by Singularity42 (talk · contribs) in the past.
It was contested by Impaled666 (talk · contribs)

Impaled666 (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop owning articles. Also, this AFD will not be closed. You contested the prod, but AFD comes after prod. Joe Chill (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are attempting do what you are stating.And you are removing part of the article that we are allowed to post.Impaled666 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove anything. Others did and they had good reasons for it. Reasons that you won't listen to. You just don't understand the rules. Joe Chill (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained on your talk page, a tag saying a proposed deletion was contested goes on the talk page. That has been done for all three articles. This is AfD, which is different from proposed deletion. To contest the deletion, you say on this page why you are contesting it (which you have done). After seven days, an administrator will review everyone's comments and determine what the consensus is. Singularity42 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, no evidence that the band/artist meet WP:BAND per WP:RS; including the article on the label, which also fails WP:CORP, this appears to be one large WP:COATRACK. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, I can find no evidence of the band, company or person other than the 2 self-published website noted at the top of this discussion and the MySpace pages. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt liberally, as it seems that the author has promised to keep posting the article, trying to brute force it though. Sodam Yat (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2009 (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.