Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cancer Conspiracy

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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Cancer Conspiracy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Vermont. ––FormalDude talk 07:42, 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 1: 98 of the 222 results on Archive.org are relevant to this band. Some of the sources that can (and will) be used as citations on the rewrite include WP:RS and notable publications like Ox-Fanzine, Punk Planet, AMP, The Phoenix, HeartattaCk, Seven Days, Maximum Rocknroll, Modern Drummer, Plan B, Plastic Bomb, SLUG Magazine, Suburban Voice and The Improper Bostonian.

-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.

Link1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

-Point 3: In addition to the above, other online publications include AllMusic (Link, which has a detailed band page with a biography and a professional review of one of their releases so it can be used as a valid source since its not user-generated content), Barre Montpelier Times Argus (Link), The Austin Chronicle (Link), BrooklynVegan (Link), Metal.de (Link), Pollstar (Link), Ondarock (Link), Rock Hard (Link), Alarm (Link), Scene Point Blank (Link), Lambgoat (Link) and Visions (Link).

-Point 4: 265 of the 304 results on Newspapers.com searching for "cancer conspiracy" between 1999 and 2008 are relevant to this band. Again, most are trivial listings for concerts, but there are 13 that are clear WP:SIGCOV. You can take your pick of the 9 full-page or half-page write-ups in the The Burlington Free Press (Link1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). There's also a feature article in the Arizona Daily Star (Link), and album reviews in the Daily Hampshire Gazette (Link), The Sun News (Link) and The Tampa Tribune (Link).

-As mentioned above, these are just things I found in a quick hour of research. I could find a ton more if I start looking back on the Wayback Machine at old WP:RS webzines and music publications of the era.--Bricks&Wood talk 09:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Bricks&Wood. ––FormalDude talk 13:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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,Rosguill ^talk 14:50, 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&Wood talk 18:43, 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.