Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronauts of Antiquity

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 delete. Article has references, but consensus is that this level of coverage is insufficient for the subject to meet WP:MUSIC. First keep comment agrees that evidence of substantial coverage is unclear, second and third keep comment do not address this issue. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astronauts of Antiquity[edit]

Astronauts of Antiquity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable band, independent releases only, no contract with an established label, only claim of notability is the participation of the member of Digable Planets. Corvus cornixtalk 21:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am the creator of the page and the band has also received notable coverage in Time Out and numerous other international sources. We have a deal with Koch Entertainment in place for an album release in November and the deletion of this page would only serve in complicating our pre-release new media marketing plan. We also have major revered music producers involved in this release that I am legally not allowed to name at the moment. Needless to say, this group will need this page set up in the next month or so. Please do not remove this page and further complicate our jobs. -Andrew Arriaga, Revcon Records/AOAmusic new media marketing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoavision (talk • contribs) 21:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC) — Aoavision (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Wikipedia is not here to facilitate your pre-release new media marketing plan. Please see Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest. Corvus cornixtalk 21:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page contains a lot of marketing language and repeated links to commercial sites (WP:SPAM). The author clearly has a conflict of interest in posting it (WP:COI). Wronkiew (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as I've stripped out most of the offending links and marketing speak, properly tagged and formatted the article, and included a couple of references to reliable third-party sources. I also found listing entries in places like The New York Times that apparently verify that Cee-Knowledge has collaborated with AOA for several years but whose coverage was insufficient to include them as references. (I will confess that I am more that a little put off by somebody trying to use Wikipedia as part of a "pre-release new media marketing plan" but what I've found so far puts them hairy outer edge of notability.) If the band really did receive substantial reviews or coverage, as the creator claims, I could be persuaded to reconsider. - Dravecky (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:JNN not being a compelling reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JNN only applies if someone asserted that the article is not notable without backing it up with evidence. Corvus did provide an explanation of why he thought the subject was not notable. Wronkiew (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find the explanation persuasive. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment to the king's vote: That's a great argument - Because you claim someone (I guess you mean Corvus) argued the band is just not notable (he didn't, he gave reasons) you are voting "Keep"? I guess the right formalistic answer to that would be to vote "Delete" because you were just pointing to a policy without giving reasons for it. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the reasons are not convincing. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with WP:JNN. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not persuaded that they are not notable enough for a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you are right on on this one too!!!! Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Testmasterflex (talk • contribs) 06:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just arguing that the subject is notable without providing any evidence is exactly what WP:JNN is talking about. Wronkiew (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the phrase is used in other contexts. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And? You've been warned about that. Corvus cornixtalk 22:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not worry about bad faith and conflict of interest "warnings". There is no reason not to consider how best to use article space for Astronauts of Antiquity and if there are similarly titled topics that should be in an "Astronauts of Antiquity (?)" different titled article. We keep an open mind to how best to cover content and what can/should be moved as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roi, the link is to information about a concept, which is distinctly different from the band. This AFD is to consider the notability of the band. Please stick to that.--chaser (away) - talk 00:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm wondering if this article's current subject should be moved to Astronauts of Antiquity (band). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article at Ancient astronaut theories. Corvus cornixtalk 18:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I think that if anyone's opposed to one on this band, we should at least redirect Astronauts of Antiquity to Ancient astronaut theories. And if editors believe we should keep the content on the band then move that to Astronauts of Antiquity (band). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it meets that. Criteria one requires the subject get non-trivial coverage in multiple (meaning more than one) reliable sources. I've seen three things that might qualify, but according to my analysis, two of them don't. This article from The Daily Tar Heel probably qualifies, as we usually consider school papers trivial, but evaluate by the case. The Tar Heel is a major paper in its county, with an appreciable circulation of 40,000 and numerous awards for being the best college paper or among the best in various categories. The other thing cited in the article is this from a blog. Blogs are generally not reliable sources. Although this article I found is from a reliable source (the NY Daily News), it's trivial. I don't see any other way it meets MUSIC, so I say delete.--chaser (away) - talk 00:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awww f**k, it is to a blog, I missed that. I think I need another coffee. Or less coffee, one of the two. Well that changes things a bit doesn't it.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to those that have assisted in editing the page to the necessary criteria. It was not my sole intention in the previous post to assert that this page was created solely for marketing purposes. Bad choice of phrase and thank you for removing those elements that made it so. Ultimately, I do feel that the band has received a decent amount of coverage in a few notable places and I just wanted to provide a means of referral for those that may be interested in learning more about the band biographically. I consistently use Wikipedia to discover the same information about other bands I'm into so that was my goal. However, do as you see fit with the page. I do hope we will be given a chance to keep the page up though, at least after a bit of time. Thank you. -Andrew, Revcon Records —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoavision (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The band clearly doesn't meet WP:MUSIC so the question becomes, does it meet the WP:GNG. Right now the answer appears to be no, but only barely. Also, I would recommend that contributors treat this AfD as a discussion of the notability of the subject of the article rather than the article. This cuts two ways. It means that we can't just consider the article's current state (possible reliable sources that exist now but aren't referenced in the article must be considered) but we also shouldn't attempt to turn this into a referendum on a different subject. Any other subject should be treated separately. This is a matter of fairness to the article creators, the participants in the AfD and the subject of the article itself. Any other use of the term "Astronauts of Antiquity" should be considered as distinct from this term. If someone feels that it is appropriate to create an article on something else, then it is surely better to start a page Astronauts of antiquity (something else) and move the page to Astronauts of antiquity after this AfD is over than to create an article about an unrelated subject over this article while a community discussion about the article is ongoing. Protonk (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Off-topic thread continuing prior dispute removed. Le Grand and CC, please knock it off. This is not helping.--chaser - t 00:08, 23 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Astronauts_of_Antiquity&oldid=1140104106"