Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jackson Jihad 3

Add links
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 closed and listed on deletion review. --Coredesat 01:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Jackson Jihad[edit]

AFD retracted. See comment at bottom. -Halo 01:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[edit]

Added a new AFD for this article. Despite being based on WP:MUSIC, it does not meet it:

  • Has not had a charted hit on any national music chart.
  • Has not been certified gold in any major country.
  • Has not gone on an international concert tour. Has performed in other states in the US, but does not qualify as a full national tour.
  • Has not released two albums, hasn't released anything on a major or indie label.
  • No reliable cited sources. There is a minor mention in a Phoenix New Times, a local paper, but this is not a major article. The AZNightBuzz link is a blog, therefore not reputatable. The eCollegeTimes has only 50 unique hits on Google, not reputable. The State Press is a bigger article, but is only a small college paper and part of a news page . Does not hit "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media". No national press whatsoever
  • No major members from other bands
  • Not a notable style for a city or a local scene of a city. If it were, they would have received more verifiable press mentions.
  • Has not won or been placed a major music award. Won one "Best of Phoenix" award from a local paper, and was nominated for another. These are nowhere near "major".
  • Not performed performed music for a work of media that is notable, or been on radio
  • 172 hits on Google, 126 listeners on last.fm. Does not pass either as notable. Also isn't mentioned on AllMusicGuide.

This does not fit WP:MUSIC, it isn't notable. This is an article that should be deleted.

Previously deleted, but it was readded and the last AFD closed with "No Consensus" despite 11 delete votes (including nom) and 5 keep votes (I believe that lack of consensus is debatable). Please see the last AFD for more discussion about this article.

I'm trying to get a fair AFD _with_ a consensus this time, since I think there's arguments towards Parsssseltongue vote canvassing during the last vote which I would like to avoid this time. Halo 00:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pars notified everyone who participated in the previous AFD about this one. I personally don't see this as problematic, as it wasn't just keep voters this time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, speedy keep Nomination is of the worst faith. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain my bad faith? You were the one who showed me towards the article in the first place, and as I've previously stated, I believe the previous AFD wasn't done correctly. I firmly believe that this does not meet WP:MUSIC and I've explained this using Wikipedia policies and beyond. -Halo 00:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • All the reasons it meets WP:MUSIC were explained on the talk page and cited with reliable sources in the article. You feel they aren't notable sources, but others disagreed. No consensus could be reached, so that's why the article was kept. You are assuming bad faith in the admin who closed the AfD by saying his/her decision was unsound, and you are re-opening an AfD a mere TWO HOURS after one has closed! Has gone on a national concert tour in one large country. Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style and the local scene of a city. Has won a major music award. Has won or placed in a major music competition. AJJ has met these requirements. The article needs to be kept and allowed to expand as more coverage takes place. As far as the vote canvassing allegations, I have remedied this by leaving messages on ALL the voters' pages, regardless of "keep" or "delete" vote. PT (s-s-s-s) 00:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • For a start - I didn't mention bad faith, and I don't like the fact you said I did, I said that the AFD result of No Concensus was debatable, which it is and I'm trying to establish a firm consensus by renominating, seeing if it does establish it this time. I've explained my reasons why they haven't been mentioned in multiple verifiable articles in my nom. Give it a read. Halo 01:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pars, accusing someone of bad faith means that you're saying that you think they're doing something for a reason other than wanting to improve the encyclopedia. It's a pretty serious accusation, and a tad baffling when there's no other apparent motivation. Are you absolutely sure this is what you mean? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. If Halo were looking out for the benefit of the encyclopedia, he/she would respect the decision that was made and not open an AfD mere hours later. PT (s-s-s-s) 01:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No decision was made. No decision exists that needs to be respected. I would personally have put this on WP:DRV as an improper close (consensus existed, that consensus was to delete, admin misjudged) but this works as well. --tjstrf 01:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's also the issue of WP:AGF. A bad-faith nomination is like nominating Bill Cosby as a non-notable performer, or George W. Bush as a non-notable president. Something clearly ridiculous. There's nothing ridiculous or inappropriate about this nomination, and speedy keep doesn't apply when others beside the nominator feel the article should be deleted, regardless of how many times it's been nominated in the past. --NMChico24 01:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But I have shown how AJJ is notable, per WP:MUSIC, and it has been argued out already in an AfD closed mere hours ago, so this is ridiculous and inappropriate. PT (s-s-s-s) 01:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obscure band, local interest only. —Chowbok 00:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This just doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, despite a yeoman's effort on the part of Pars to try and do everything that can be done. There just isn't the material here to build an article with the proper foundation of sources, and that's why we have notability standards. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a joke? No, seriously. This just finished an AfD this afternoon. Strong keep if not speedy keep #6. Meets WP:MUSIC for media attention at the least. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may have missed the "non-trivial" in "non-trivial published works," in WP:MUSIC. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a disagreement between editors as to what constitutes "trivial" and not here. That's why there was a "no consensus," that's why it defaulted to "keep," and that's why the decision should be respected, and the article should be allowed time to expand. PT (s-s-s-s) 01:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a joke. I also don't understand what you mean by Wikipedia:Speedy keep? #6 is "The article is currently linked to on the Main Page. Please wait until it is not there before starting a deletion discussion."? If you mean 5, I've never nominated this article before, so I'm not sure how that applies either. Halo 01:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Has won local contests and was featured in our local alternative newspaper. Good for a non-notable myspace band, but a non-notable myspace band nonetheless. The band can check back in a few years when they've hit the charts. --NMChico24 00:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Define "MySpace band." And who in this AfD are you asking to check back in after hitting the charts when you say "you"? PT (s-s-s-s) 01:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarified per your request  :) --NMChico24 01:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:MUSIC. Even if this was closed 2 hours ago, it's still not a notable group. I don't believe there's a statuatory time limit on AfD's of "no consensus" anyway. --tjstrf 01:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep the AfD just failed...why is this being nominated again? The article was deemed worthy earlier, so why would it be deleted now when improvement work has been done to it? How is the article supposed to meet your standards if you are just going to renominate immediatley after the AfD fails? Seems notable enough for me... Wikipediarules2221 01:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which Speedy criteria does it fulfill? It got a "No Consensus" vote, not a keep vote - there is a big difference between the two. One means that it belongs, one means that it wasn't clear cut enough to decide, hence the re-AFD Halo 01:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Allow more time before new AfD please.--Húsönd 01:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD should actually be closed as soon as possible. There's no reason to believe that there'll be more consensus now than a few hours ago.--Húsönd 01:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I voted delete in the original 'articles for deletion' debate, but I am voting keep, due to the fact that the previous nomination ended merely hours before the opening of this one. If you want to obtain another consensus on the issue, then it would be more prudent to give the article some more time before doing so, Give the article and band in question at least a couple of months to see if it can satisfy the WP:BAND guidelines. --Auger Martel 01:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would the nominator please retract nomination and relist on WP:DRV[edit]

I believe it would be for the best that this be disputed via drv as an improper no consensus close, rather than psuedo-relisted as a new debate immediately after the old one. Any objections? --tjstrf 01:14, 18 October 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Jackson_Jihad_3&oldid=1124005863"