Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Staine (band)
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. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Staine (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
On the borderline of speedy (even the article admits the band wasn't successful), but I'm not sure it quite fits the bill, so brought here. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I agree with the nominator that this borders on a speedy-delete A7 candidate, there's no real assertion of notability for this band. Their website is a broken link and there's no evidence they had anything like the level of success or media coverage necessary to fulfil WP:MUSIC. ~ mazca t | c 19:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable.--McSly (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 02:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready for AfDComment. I speedy-tagged it until I saw the "underconstruction" tag, then I reverted myself. The article still is being actively edited. I consider it bad form to tag any article with AfD if it's already tagged as under construction. If no edits appear in 3 days or so, then go ahead and propose it for deletion. I recommend closing this nomination for now. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- To be honest though, the information already present in the article seems to demonstrate pretty unequivocally that this band fails WP:MUSIC completely, as it had no real success, charted releases, legacy, or notable members. If we put this AfD on hold for a week the outcome would still be the same. The article's presence here at AfD is far more due to the inherent status of the band rather than the current, incomplete status of the article - so while I appreciate your point that {{underconstruction}} tags should be paid attention to when nominating for deletion, in this case I can't see it achieving very much. ~ mazca t | c 22:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, last week when I removed my own speedy-delete tag from this article, I was thinking of The Velvet Underground, also a totally-non-notable band in its time, but wound up heavily influencing other musicians who became notable themselves. On the off-chance that something interesting might be written in this article, I put it on my watchlist, with intent to speedy-delete it once editing quieted down and nothing appeared in the article to distinguish this band. Instead, I was distressed to see an AfD nomination appear. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a fair point, I just don't feel it's likely - the article was edited for two days before AfD nomination and has been further edited since, and there isn't much of a suggestion that any such influences of other notable bands have occurred. I agree that an argument could be made to have delayed AfDing this, but here we are and I don't see much profit in stringing it out - unless something actually does get sourced to demonstrate notability, all that will happen is they'll put more time into the article and it'll then be deleted anyway. The whole idea of AfD is to give time for arguments and evidence to be raised, and I just haven't seen any. ~ mazca t | c 12:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, last week when I removed my own speedy-delete tag from this article, I was thinking of The Velvet Underground, also a totally-non-notable band in its time, but wound up heavily influencing other musicians who became notable themselves. On the off-chance that something interesting might be written in this article, I put it on my watchlist, with intent to speedy-delete it once editing quieted down and nothing appeared in the article to distinguish this band. Instead, I was distressed to see an AfD nomination appear. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest though, the information already present in the article seems to demonstrate pretty unequivocally that this band fails WP:MUSIC completely, as it had no real success, charted releases, legacy, or notable members. If we put this AfD on hold for a week the outcome would still be the same. The article's presence here at AfD is far more due to the inherent status of the band rather than the current, incomplete status of the article - so while I appreciate your point that {{underconstruction}} tags should be paid attention to when nominating for deletion, in this case I can't see it achieving very much. ~ mazca t | c 22:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete and salt. I withdraw my "Not ready for AfD" comment above. Now that the article has had a few days to improve its way out of this AfD nomination, it hasn't been improved at all. Instead, an anonymous editor persistently removes the AfD tag. Enough. Even the article itself says the band isn't notable. Time to delete it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:09, 28 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.