Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velvet Trench Vibes

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. 山本一郎 (会話) 06:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Trench Vibes[edit]

Appropriate notability is extremely limited if existent at all -- internet sources overwhelmingly consist of user-contributed content, such as YouTube, MySpace, Facebook and blogs. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

adding non album by the artist

Delete both fail to assert any notability. --neon white talk 20:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs more detail, but I find the case for deletion made here to be fairly substanceless. Keep it and improve it - it's what Wikipedia's for, anyway.Fumoses (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? It's a clear violation of the Wikipedia requirement for reliable sources. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Notability can be established (though it has not been). I would have to suggest a delete for the album though. Delete per nom. A second search of Google proved that I misjudged sources that I found. DARTH PANDA^talk 00:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability cannot be established, as established by the assertions above that public forum reveals merely user-contributed content. Saying that it can be established when all indications are that it cannot serves to belittle the AfD process. The claim that notability can be established is such a weak one that we cannot allow the article to remain on the hopes that non-user generation content will one day be available. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it 'belittle the AfD process', comments without proper explaination will simply carry little weight in the final consensus. Saying that you think notability can be established but not explaining how and then pointing out that it hasn't actually been established is just bizarre. Unless the editor plans to come up with some sources pretty soon it's pointless commenting. --neon white talk 14:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Any particular reason that you're being so aggressive about it? I'm sure you can come up with a better way with telling me how the AfD process works than calling me "just bizarre". It sounds like you're treating me like a newbie editor (which for AfD, I am), yet personally, I would try to help out a newbie editor instead of beating them back down and telling them that their contributions are "pointless". DARTH PANDA^talk 15:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call anyone bizarre or make any personal comments, i said that "Saying that you think notability can be established but not explaining how and then pointing out that it hasn't actually been established is just bizarre". Which i stand by, it's a strange argument to go with a 'keep' comment. Your arguing that notability has not been established which is a reason to delete an article not keep it. The fact is unless contributions make clear points and not confused ones, they are pointless. I recommend Wikipedia:Afd#How to discuss an AfD --neon white talk 16:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not show any real notability. lacks siginficant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources. Article appears to rely on POV OR. Above "Keep" argument gives no real reason. (I have added an AFD notice on Opium Lounge) Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - virtually no information supported by reliable sources, and without anything that can be so verified, demonstrating that the band would comply with WP:MUSIC would be close to impossible, to say the least. B.Wind (talk) 04:00, 25 October 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.