Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flies Inside The Sun

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 05:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flies Inside The Sun[edit]

Non-notable (and speedy-deletable) per WP:BAND, but db-band and prod contested. Notability in a very limited context is not notability in general. dcandeto 00:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no notability asserted, fails Keep per WP:MUSIC. Royboycrashfan 00:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This band were a prominent part of a 1990s experimental music movement in New Zealand. The movement, sometimes labelled 'free-noise', was well known in experimental music circles around the world, and was a distinctive sub-genre. A Google search for "Flies Inside The Sun" reveals that this band's releases are stocked by numerous notable suppliers (such as Forced Exposure, Volcanic Tongue, Southern) and have been reviewed in numerous notable magazines (both online and print) (including Dusted, Pitchfork, Arthur etc). Cnwb 01:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This user is the creator of the article. dcandeto 01:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Which doesn't make his vote any less valid. Cnwb 01:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment No results for reviews or news in Pitchfork, contrary to submitter's claim. TKE 03:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't find any mention either. This is a concern - can someone provide specific checkable references? Ziggurat 03:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Sorry, that was my fault. I quickly scanned through the Google results in my flury of article-defence, amd mis-read the results. I should have been more thorough. I have amended my comments. Cnwb 03:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • 's okay, I'm a Pitchforkaholic ;) TKE 04:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not going to vote here, as it's not necessary, but I would keep since the band is on Kranky, one of the top indie lables. But as noted above, they don't appear on Pitchforkmedia.com. TKE 03:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Cnwb; also, the band does have an allmusic profile [1]--TBC??? ??? ??? 01:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep satisfies verifiability requirements. Not a speedy candidate, as it has an assertion of notability, and not a delete candidate, as it has a CD published by Kranky. Needs some references from magazine reviews, however. Ziggurat 01:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Ziggurat 02:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Band is notable for its time period. Whether that means it is still notable, I don't know. No tracks in the Nature's Best series (a Y2K release of the "top 100" NZ songs of all time), but that doesn't mean non-notable. --Midnighttonight 02:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Cnwb.-gadfium 02:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Allmusic.com considers that they are notable so they are verifiable and seem notable within genre. Capitalistroadster 03:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above. James 03:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and edit AFTER discussion. This afd is testament to the ability for wiki process to be subverted, there is to be discussion PRIOR to afd. check the talk page, there are only 2 entries. come on, show your comittment to doin the right thing here, moza 13:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If talk-page discussion is required, as you claim, that should be written somewhere prominent on the main AfD page. Please don't claim that things are required if they aren't. dcandeto 17:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there is clearly no need for , and there should not be an afd page, apart from an absurd notion of how to pervert the course of justice on wikipedia. Why did anyone do it? Lets have it in the open.moza 05:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not perverting anything. Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF before continuing down this path. dcandeto 11:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith? is prod and afd (without prior discussion) ever done in good faith? is saying that musicians are not notable when they have published recordings not a personal attack? I'm simply insisting that you practice what you preach, justice, nothing personal, I have no idea who you are, so ts impossible. I see that you are back working on your own article so thats good. Good faith says to discuss PRIOR to force deletion debate. NPA applies to the subjects of the articles as well, when they are real and named people, not hiding behind a mask. Paul Moss. moza 13:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for usage of your and you, I accept that it could be misconstrued. I altered them to what they should have been. "perverting the course of justice" is a standard legal term in western society, and it is my POV that it applies to many afd sagas, and especially this one here. Now, how about an apology to the musicians named in the article, that have been attacked?moza 13:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination to delete is not a personal attack and should never be construed as such. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, because it discusses this. There is nothing in WP:AFD or WP:AGF that insists on using the talk page before a deletion nomination, but there is something about "Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold." Please don't scold, Paul, because the nomination was an honest mistake. Ziggurat 19:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well now thats the point, you also believe that there is nothing to indicate disussion first. How could a well meaning person make such a mistake if they followed the clear policy of discussion first? oh my finger slipped on the afd button? afd should never be a mistake. A nominate to delete a group of persons MUST be an attack on those persons, not the wiki community, lets not confuse that here. This is not about a wiki person, this is about a process, hurting real people out there, not in here. Lets stop getting sidetracked! you can quote all you like about deletion policy references, and it will be about just that, deletion. I'm trying to discuss discussion policy to prevent deletion, thats just a tad different. My point is that these very smoke screens often prevent justice.moza 02:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination to delete a Wikipedia article about a group of people is not an attack on those people or an attempt to delete them - Wikipedia:Guide to deletion is very clear about that. You are construing it as such, but it is not. An AFD merely indicates "I do not believe that this article is of the necessary standard to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia." The reason that there is a discussion on AfD is that sometimes mistakes are made. And about getting sidetracked - a deletion discussion is not the appropriate forum to talk about these things. If you feel that Wikipedia policy is inappropriate, propose a change and discuss it on the talk page of the policy in question or at the Village Pump. Ziggurat 02:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I am happy with deletion policy, this is about pre-deletion policy. Its not the policy that is under attacke, but the use of it. There is a difference. This discussion is more about mental set and setting. What better place to discuss injustice, than where it is happening? And why not debate the pre-deletion policy (discussion, assistance, good faith) rather than again sidetarcking it to deletion policy?moza 04:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the nominator has clearly stated that such discussion is to take place here.moza 04:03, 30 March 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/Flies_Inside_The_Sun&oldid=1137852079"