Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hubble Constant
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 and Redirect to Hubble's law. Nakon 21:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Hubble Constant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Band has a few mentions mainly on gig guides and some reviews but no non trivial articles to suggest notability per WP:MUSIC. Article is not very well written and is mostly quotes from reviews. No real signs of it being improved. neonwhite user page talk 21:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Hubble's law. The Hubble Constant is an important astrophysical and cosmological constant in first place.147.175.98.213 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per 147. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per anon. However, I have doubts if users are likely to add the "The" while searching for the Hubble Constant--Lenticel (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - keep or delete. Why would we re-direct a band's name to a scientific article, when someone might be looking for one or the other? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Hubble Constant is an important concept in astrophysics. This band on the other hand is completely unimportant. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article needs clean-up, but it does cite multiple reviews in reliable sources; these seem sufficiently non-trivial to me. That qualifies them under WP:MUSIC criterion #1 and I do not feel that those above calling have sufficiently addressed why the reviews given are insufficient. The band has also toured extensively, so WP:MUSIC #4 may apply. They also have a number of releases on what might be considered a "more important indie label" under WP:MUSIC #5. So, not an easy case to consider and, as I said, clean-up required, but there appear to me to be several indicators or possible indicators of notability. Bondegezou (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article, in fact, does not cite any sources whatsoever, if you know of any sources that aren't in the article then present them here or add them. The only article that would be of interest would be an article in metal hammer, however no evidence that this actually exists can be found. A handful of live reviews on local gig guides just isnt enough for notability. There has to be something to write in the article so it isnt a permanent stub. Claiming a band has toured is not a criteria for notability all bands tour, not all bands are notable. None of those indie labels have any history or importance, in fact i cannot find any evidence that Post Collapse Records actualy exists or existed. All current evidence points to this being a band with little more than local notability. --neonwhite user page talk 17:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A review in Metal Hammer is cited; under WP:AGF, it would seem reasonable to assume it exists, although a specific citation would be preferable. I accept the other reviews indicate little. Not all bands tour and a national tour is a criterion under WP:MUSIC. This act appear to be touring beyond a local area, but I accept that this is unclear and not sufficient supported by reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The review in metal hammer is not cited in the article. Assuming good faith is a behavioural guideline on how to discuss in a civil manner it has absolutely nothing to do with citing sources. Please read that policy carefuly. All sources must be cited properly, we cannot assume they exist. We need to know whether the mention is more than the quote in the article, if it is merely a passing remark about a supporting act within the context of a larger review then it would only be a trivial mention. At the moment there is no evidence of a national tour reported in reliable secondary sources. --neonwhite user page talk 18:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A review in Metal Hammer is cited; under WP:AGF, it would seem reasonable to assume it exists, although a specific citation would be preferable. I accept the other reviews indicate little. Not all bands tour and a national tour is a criterion under WP:MUSIC. This act appear to be touring beyond a local area, but I accept that this is unclear and not sufficient supported by reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article, in fact, does not cite any sources whatsoever, if you know of any sources that aren't in the article then present them here or add them. The only article that would be of interest would be an article in metal hammer, however no evidence that this actually exists can be found. A handful of live reviews on local gig guides just isnt enough for notability. There has to be something to write in the article so it isnt a permanent stub. Claiming a band has toured is not a criteria for notability all bands tour, not all bands are notable. None of those indie labels have any history or importance, in fact i cannot find any evidence that Post Collapse Records actualy exists or existed. All current evidence points to this being a band with little more than local notability. --neonwhite user page talk 17:42, 15 January 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.