Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futuristic Sex Robotz

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 DELETE. The most clearly supported position here is to delete and it also makes it easily above the two-thirds level, probably even before the usual discounting of anonymous, very new and mission-driven editors. The fact is that this is an 'internet thing' that is new and not widely spread on the internet: the arguments to the contrary clearly haven't persuaded anyone who was not already persuaded. -Splashtalk 22:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Futuristic Sex Robotz[edit]

Band with no actual releases, a link to their Encyclopaedia Dramatica entry and such beautiful lines as "Popular references include... killing your mom and putting her in a van and burning her, and then writing about that shit in their livejournals."FCYTravis 07:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A full-length album has been released in mp3 format. The band passes WP:MUSIC as a prominent representative of the Nerdcore genre. Incidentally, the quoted text is a reference to Rachelle Waterman, who is the subject of one of their songs. Thatdog 07:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a "prominent representative of the Nerdcore genre" gets 344 total Google hits, I would posit that Nerdcore fails WP:MUSIC. I certainly expect a band that bases its entire music/notability/whatever on the Internet to have more than that. Anyone can release full-length albums on mp3. Shit, I could do a "full-length mp3 album" with GarageBand. That doesn't mean I'd pass WP:MUSIC. FCYTravis 07:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Futuristic Sex Robotz passes all conditions for performers outside of mass media tradition. (Note the Daily Tar Heel article.) Your reasoning against the validity of a self released album in MP3 format is lacking; I'm sure you could release a full-length MP3 album using GarageBand, but the fact remains that it's entirely irrelevent. FSR has a large fan base that is primarily propagating the band via word of mouth and on web forums that are *not* being spidered by Google. The music video on FSR's web site has been downloaded 500,000+ times that can be verified (not counting an unknown number of mirrors) and the band has been in the Nerdcore_hip_hop article for months without question. The authors of this article have verified references to establish significant notoriety. Additionally, your original complaint is heavily biased. "Um... yeah, great." While we're at it, let's delete everything else you find personally offensive, shall we? Cellophane 08:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Biased? Well, gee, why would I be biased against something I'd never heard of until I stumbled across it on the WP:PROD listing? FCYTravis 08:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • KeepI think the fact that you've never heard of it is completely irrelevant. Clearly this page meets the criteria for WP:MUSIC under "performers outside of mass media tradition", so why don't we settle this one out? Penmoid 08:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This is not a user(penmoid, as they claim), its 209.221.140.121. As you can see by their contributions, they have made 4 edits; 3 of them to this vfd. Their first contribution was today. They are almost surely a sockpuppet.--Urthogie 12:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may surprise you, but you don't have to have extensively edit an online encyclopedia to be a real, independent person. At one point, you made your first edit. 209.221.140.136 04:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My first edit wasn't a vote to keep a non-notable article, because like most people at that point i didn't know what a vfd is.--Urthogie 13:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I am now taking responsibility for that IP address. Penmoid 04:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE:Username was created today and this is his first entry
NOTE: Check the IPs, Sir. The username was registered yesterday, everything I have posted matches the IP that I posted under prior to creating the username, which I did for no other reason that anyone without a username is considered a sockpuppet. So while my username may only have one (now 2) edits, you yourself were only recently speaking of 5 edits from my IP address, which, using basic math, equals 7 posts. You talk a lot about NO PERSONAL ATTACKS, and yet you constantly attack anyone who speaks out in support of this entry, which shows extreme bias on your part. How many posts do those people who voted to delete have? I doubt you have even checked. And I also find it funny that you chose to bold your entire comment so that people would ignore every other comment you made to me, posting as the IP address that I claimed for my username. But I guess if all bold is en vogue now... Penmoid 19:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't check their usernames because a)theyre in blue, which means theyve made a userpage and b)their vote shows they have a basic understanding of policy concerning notability.--Urthogie 19:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Excuse my inexperience with Wiki editing. How do you get a list to nest properly? Yes, Biased:
  1. "Band with no actual releases" Define "actual release." Not a valid argument against notoriety. The band still qualifies for other requirements in WP:MUSIC without being represented by a major label.
  2. "a link to their Encyclopaedia Dramatica entry" Completely irrelevant. Are you saying that the article is vandalism? Was it written by documented vandals? No.
  3. "and such beautiful lines as..." etc. Biased argument that the article isn't appropriate simply because it documents something you find personally offensive.

Perhaps the quality of the article could improve (I didn't write it), but certainly belongs here. Cellophane 08:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia Dramatica entries are, well, generally not encyclopedic or useful external links. I trust it's obvious why someone would mistrust an article with external links to ED. Funny, generally. A reliable source? Not so much. Anyway, we'll let the community decide. FCYTravis 09:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable group in the "internet" scene. Has some quite humours releases too. They even have music videos for at least one of their tracks, and they pass WP:MUSIC as per above. --lightdarkness (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nerds who rap on the internet aren't encyclopedic until they sell millions, collaborate with big artists, or are on mass media. A search for "Urthogie" gets more hits on google than these guys. Also, please note that they aren't representative of the style, if they were, they'd get more google hits than urthogie.--Urthogie 10:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for Futuristic sex robots outside of wikipedia gives 297 hits, actually-- less than urthogie. Nice try biasing the search for one side and not the other, though :) --Urthogie 13:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

And a search for "futuristicsexrobotz" (no spaces) yeilds 878 results. A search for song lyric "Yo Coaxke, what's killtacular mean?" -Robotz yields 114, meaning that there are that many people citing lyrics as a pop culture reference who aren't bothering to name the band directly. -Schrodinger82
Comment Umm...Google compresses most of those results, as many of them are from quoted forum posts. So it looks like eight different forums have lyrics posted to them. 878 results are unimpressive; that clearly is not all nerdcore has to offer, viz. MC Hawking. So FSR is simply not notable. --Mgreenbe 15:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google also compresses results for "Urthogie." Which was pretty much the point. -Schrodinger82
Well you've managed to prove that they might deserve an article slightly more than a 16 year old wikipedian; congrats!--Urthogie 19:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Google counts the number of times a phrase or word has been mentioned on the internet, but can't count the number of fans someone has. Cellophane 10:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Cellephane's first edits were today; likely a sockpuppet.--Urthogie 11:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a sockpuppet account. I registered an account so I could be taken more seriously than an IP address. So far, that isn't happening. 13:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Note to Urthogie, please assume good faith. I don't think Cellophane is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. FCYTravis 19:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has now been discovered that Cellophane is one of the members of the group, despite the fact that they have edited their own article.[2]--Urthogie 11:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. If we can't prove the 'number of fans someone has', and this is the only justification that can be made for retaining the article, then the article fails WP:V. This is absolutely essential (note the link to Wikipedia:verifiability right there underneath the editing box and above the edit summary), and so unless relevant proof can be supplied, the article should be deleted. Proto||type 11:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem here is that specific people in this discussion are specifically out to prove how many fans FSR *doesn't* have, simply because they don't like it. Cellophane 13:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note to Cellophane, please assume good faith. Nobody's said anything about not liking it - only that it's not encyclopedic. FCYTravis 19:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bandity. Having MP3s does't count as a released album for our purposes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well known enough to be wiki'd. Girlmecha 12:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This user has made 8 edits(4 on their user page), and this is their first edit in the wikipedia namespace.--Urthogie 12:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I generally edit wiki without logging in first. Girlmecha 14:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just don't know whats going on in the world anymore. Convinced by Urthogie that this article should not be. Smitz 12:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't fit the criteria for notability.--Urthogie 12:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Urthogie You really have a problem with this entry don't you - did you fail an audition? And a user who has been here for all of 21 hours really doesn't have the right to cast doubt on other users such as Girlmecha. The fact is this is a known band, I have heard of them, others on this page have heard of them, and no one has heard of you. Now relax sunshine :) Smitz 13:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't want fancruft to stay. You hearing about it is not a wikipedia guideline last time i checked. Perhaps you should try out wikicities? And what do you mean, been here for 21 hours? I've been editing for several months.--Urthogie 13:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No entry at allmusic.com All music has nerdcore artists MC Hawking, but not these guys-- why? Because theyre not notable.--Urthogie 13:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • MC Hawking has been around for upwards of 9 years. Futuristic Sex Robotz's debut album has been out for two days. Consider the possibility that Google hasn't spidered a significant amount of coverage as of yet. Also, FSR's views about intellectual property combined with the fact that the album is free and not printed on a physical medium make it incredibly unlikely that the band will be recognized by the music industry at large, especially on sites such as allmusic.com. The idea that Wikipedia relies on industry controlled recognition to gauge notoriety is disappointing. Cellophane 13:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm going to sleep now. Do whatever the hell you want, this has all been your time to waste. Sooner than later, there will be far more than enough verifiable proof of the notoriety of FSR, which has primarily been an underground phenomenon spread through communities and mediums that are not being tracked by the criteria you're using as an excuse to debunk this article. I'll still be using this account; Cellophane has consistently been my online identity for years. I registered it to be treated with respect, not some kind of troll, and especially not to be shit on by association with people who you happen to dislike/distrust. Cellophane 13:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE this is Cellophane's second "Keep"^ Percy Snoodle 14:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Band has gone beyond simply "making a few MP3s in GarageBand" by creating a music video that has gone on earn fame and even an award for best music video within the Halo community -- a gamne that grossed $125 million US in its first 24 hours. The game itself has several articles written on Wikipedia specifically on fan videos (e.g., red vs blue, the codex series), making it a valid genre to achieve notability in. The video went on to become so popular that it even inspired a group of impersonators who tried to capitalize on their name by calling themselves "Clan FSR," starting their own website, recruiting members, and even creating crossover videos of their own with other groups under false pretenses. (The impersonators were since revealed and most references were removed in embarassment, although you can still find hints of some -- though not all -- of this in google caching.). Google searches are unreliable, for a number of reasons. First, because the name is long, and people may "mispell" the word "Robotz," abbreviate the group, or most likely, simply link to the files directly. Aside from Halo blogs (which are low in number but feature high readership), the main means of promotion for this genre has been livejournal and instant message, which google either doesn't store, or doesn't store longterm. Unfortunately, there's no way to measure that. However, download counts should speak for themselves. Yes, the band has not sold millions of copies, nor has it signed on with a major label. However, the band has managed a strong following for itself within its own (admittingly niche) genre. -Schrodinger82
NOTE: User Schrodinger82 has made 4 edits[3], 3 of them today, and of those 3, 2 of them to this vfd. Their last edit before these 3 was on November 11th. Possibly a sockpuppet, but not necessarily. (I'm not targetting anyone with these notes, just trying to ensure that a fair vote occurs).--Urthogie 15:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if killing your mom and putting her in a van was a cirteion for dleteion that escaped me. We'd all like be in peril. Defunkier 13:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definately doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Karmafist 13:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Then smash the deleted article into one trillion pieces. Then burn the pieces. Marginal band in a marginal genre + no record deal = NOT NOTABLE. -- GWO
  • Delete per nom Percy Snoodle 14:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Cellophane. Their debut album has been out for two days? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; let them be famous (e.g. notable and reputable reviews, etc.) and then they can go in. I fail to see them as prominent representatives of nerdcore with under a thousand Google hits and a two-day-old debut album. Cellophane, please discuss the article, not the contributors. It is difficult for new accounts to avoid suspicion on AfD; it was nothing personal. Feel free to sleep as much as you want, AfD discussion usually lasts a week. --Mgreenbe 14:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the clarification of the intentions of the objections in mind I don't have an objection to this article's deletion at this time. Cellophane 03:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GWO Fan1967 14:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable to a general audience. If they are as notable to Halo players as some claim then add the information to the Halo articles. Kcordina 14:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mgreenbe Dsol 14:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being unnotable and failing WP:MUSIC -- they're certainly not the most prominent representative of nerdcore. Tuf-Kat 17:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Damn sockpuppeteers. — ciphergoth 17:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With a self-released album a couple of days, these guys don't meet the bar for band articles at this stage. While they seem to have some following, they haven't done enough at this stage to meet our music notability guidelines. Capitalistroadster 17:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They're becoming more and more popular and they make decent music. They are also relevant for their pretty small genre. --Eeo 19:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: User has 8 edits[4], and all of them except this one are from october of last year.--Urthogie 19:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Gamaliel 01:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable. I watched their mechanime video, which is surprising catchy. -- Samir · TC 07:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite diatribes suggesting the contrary, it doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. --Kinu t/c 07:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We're talking about nerdcore here. A 14-year old beatboxing into a microphone would count as notable within the nerdcore circle. LupusCanis 22:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, he wouldn't. Tuf-Kat 20:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, band vanity, puppetfest. MCB 02:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --OneEuropeanHeart 03:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cleaned the article up significantly to meet Wikipedia's standards, or at least the standards by which other articles have remained consistently undisputed while documenting subjects of equal or lesser notoriety. Not to rationalize, but does seem to be a common theme. In regards to sock-puppetry, I honestly think this article has attracted an audience that is simply not generally active on Wikipedia as opposed to just throw-away accounts in order to troll/avoid accountability. I am still suspicious that there is a bias against the article based on the subject matter as opposed to whether it actually meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC. I would even go so far as to recommend that WP:MUSIC should be improved in such a way that notable acts that are simply not "press friendly" can be gauged in terms of notoriety using a far more consistent and reliable means than the vague suggestion of Google hits. If Wikipedia is not documenting phenomenon, including something as simple as a DIY, underground musical act, that major media outlets *don't* necessarily want the public to know about or are not in a position to cover, that seems to be arguably contradictory to the goals of the project. In many cases, the requirements outlined in WP:MUSIC strike me as absurdly arbitrary. Cellophane 14:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC, because it doesn't fulfill any of the notability requirements. For example, it hasn't been around very long, so it's impossible to say its representantive of the Nerdcore hip hop genre, which has been around much longer than them.--Urthogie 15:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two major media references in the external links section to the contrary, one in one of the largest college newspapers in the United States and one in the blog of Game Developer Magazine's editorial department. In any case, whether it satisfies it or not, WP:MUSIC needs work. It doesn't specify how notability relates to the varying scope of a genre/style. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Dawn_and_Drew_Show There's a precedent right there that if Futuristic Sex Robotz distributed all of its music via a Podcast, this article could in the Podcast category. This 66mb album has burned through 300gigs of bandwidth in 3 days via HTTP alone. That's very arguably no less than the output of a very popular Podcast, relatively speaking. Cellophane 15:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tourette's Guy[5] was downloaded way more, and still got deleted.--Urthogie 15:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're totally missing my point, though, and that isn't even close to being related to WP:MUSIC. Podcasts and music are essentially the same medium, not to mention that video is exponentially larger in data than audio. The point is, the album would be considered more than sufficiently notable for an article if it were a wrapped in a 5 line XML document first. Cellophane 15:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I missed your point-- you're arguing that its notable because so many people downloaded it. Hence, I replied with an example of why being downloaded a lot(millions of times in the case of tourette's guy...despite video format taking more time to download) doesn't matter as far as notability. If you have problems with WP:MUSIC, feel free to help make it better. But in the mean time, don't claim this article fits Music notability when it clearly doesnt. Thanks, --Urthogie 15:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making the point that an arbitrary number of x downloads automatically equals notability, I'm making the point that relatively speaking, the group is more notable than many other articles that remain undesputed, and Podcasts are the most similar example. Tourette's guy doesn't have an article because it's 1 out of a billion ridiculous videos on the internet. Futuristic Sex Robotz should have an article because it's 1 out of 8 or so notable acts in a notable genre. If you think this article "clearly" doesn't meet music notability, then you're one of the many others looking at this discussion and thinking "group releases album on own with no record deal, it can't possibly be notable," without giving any consideration to the fact that it's been recognized by verifiable sources as a significant member of a genre that is recognized by Wikipedia. It makes absolutely no sense to me as to how this group can be in the artist list of Nerdcore Hip Hop without any doubt whatsoever, but can't have an article of its own. Authorities on that specific genre as opposed to just hip-hop or music as a whole recognize it as meeting the requirements of WP:MUSIC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nerdcore_hip_hop Do you see any argument over whether or not Futuristic Sex Robotz belongs in that article? None. And there's nothing that distinguishes Futuristic Sex Robotz from the others that means that it has to be an external link while everything else has an article. --Cellophane 16:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ARE YOU EVER GOING TO RESPOND TO THIS? --Cellophane 13:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Letting this stay lets anything in the genre stay.--Urthogie 13:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. It lets anything with media attention stay. Besides, if a small genre is notable and it only has 10 artists, those artists should be considered notable based on different standards than yet another band of a heavily populated genre. --Cellophane 14:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:MUSIC "Has been prominently featured in any major music media." A gaming website and a college paper are not The Source or Rolling Stone last time I checked. Not only are they not Major media, theyre not music media.--Urthogie 16:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Kuzaar 15:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 16:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." Note article's external links. --Cellophane 16:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
External links such as Unencyclopedia, a joke wikipedia, and the fine journalism of game websites and something like tarheel.com?....--Urthogie
You are *seriously* dense. GameSetWatch is published by United_Business_Media and The Daily Tar Heel, University_of_North_Carolina_at_Chapel_Hill's newspaper has one of the largest circulations of a college newspaper in the country. --Cellophane 16:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps your not knowing about Wikipedia:No personal attacks is part of your incomplete understanding of policies and guidelines here. And by the way, huge corporations own lots of tiny things-- being owned by one isn't a big deal-- actually being recognized as mainstream by the public is whats important(and gamesetwatch isn't that well known by the non-gaming public). Also, your unproven claim that its among the most distributed college newspapers is not backed up with a statistic.--Urthogie 17:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The gaming public is a notable subculture. "Futuristic Sex Robotz" returned the DTH article via Google News search during the month the it was published. Apologies for the insult, but I'm getting tired of explaining the same thing to you over and over. BTW, do you frequently vote articles for deletion if you suspect that the authors are Palestinian? That wasn't an insult, it was a question. --Cellophane 17:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This may surprise you, but I don't even know who you are or where you're from. I'm just trying to get rid of an article thats not notable. And I think you'll find that most of the experienced wikipedia community would support its deletion. If it proves to be more than an internet fad that gets a lot of downloads and gets written up by college students occasionally, then good for it. Until then, its unencyclopedic.--Urthogie 17:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, my god, you are trying very, very hard 209.221.140.136 04:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He really is, isn't he - I wonder what his problem is, do you have some kind of vendetta against thisarticle Urthogie? Because the amount of effort you are putting into having one article deleted is amazing. Seriously, why do you hate this article so much? There must be thousands of non-notable atricles in wiki, and your putting all your enrergy into an article that is being vigurously defended as notable by so many people? Go kill one of the other 999 articles that NO ONE will complain about. With the amount of support this article has, much from registered, experienced users (don't ask me to cite my references, but you know what I mean ;)) this article will not be deleted, and if it is, it will be restored at some point again. I suggest you just drop it and leave this article be :) Smitz 10:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I care about this because people are ignoring policy in keeping it. No vendetta involved, just came upon it while cateogrizing.--Urthogie 12:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're wrong, then we aren't ignoring policy. Unfortunately, you're so convinced that you're right, any attempts to reason with you are pointless. Maybe the majority of experienced Wikipedia editors would agree with you, but just because we *don't* agree with you, our opinion must just be a symptom of ineptitude? That's logically false. You need to consider that the standards upon which notoriety is established, however specific they are, are still a matter of personal interpretation. I agree with Smitz in that it's astonishing just how dedicated you are to having this article deleted. It's fine that you're standing up for yourself, but you're being unreasonable. --Cellophane 13:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'm working so hard for its deletion is that it sets a precedent that makes it easier to delete cruft in the future.--Urthogie 13:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good job having an agenda instead of just seeking consensus. Convince me that I'm wrong and I'll agree with you. You've just been spouting out the same position over and over again without addressing my criticisms of your argument, and stop referring to the precedents as if 1. they're set in stone, and 2. can't be interpreted however you want in order to get what you want instead of something everyone can agree with.--Cellophane 13:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'll try and convince you. Their only claim to notability is that not many people make nerdcore hip hop. Where do we draw the line? Can anyone make a nerd-rap album and get an article? To this, you might answer that they've been mentioned in a college newspaper and a gaming website. In reply to that, I suggest you read WP:MUSIC which says "Has been prominently featured in any major music media." Neither a gaming website nor a college paper is a major medium or a music medium. Thus, the basis for keeping this is simply that its nerdcore hip hop alone-- a precedent its important we don't allow to be set.--Urthogie 16:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The so-called non-notability is simply lack of exposure in heavily-indexed forms. The group is real and a few kilobytes on an online encyclopedia acknowledging this fact won't hurt anyone.--Mod 22:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE: This user has been registered for over a year and has made hundreds of edits. Penmoid 19:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having reached cult status on several message board communities within a fortnight, it would seem like rather a waste of effort to delete the entry now, only to recreate it in a week when Google catches up with the excitement. If only perfect download stats were available from all mirrors and P2P applications: I'd be curious to see what the actual number of copies in the Ether is.
NOTE:Although they might not be a sockpuppet, this anonymous IP's last edit was a month ago.--Urthogie 15:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^ Comment: according to the [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Futuristic_Sex_Robotz Enyclopedia dramatica article], one of the members of the FSR edits with the name cellophane01. I posit that cellophane is the same person, in which case he's committing a serious faux pas by promoting his own band on wiki, and I would ask cellophane to remove himself from further discussion. - Crenner 21:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that. --Cellophane 23:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It also shows that they have broken the policy of not editing articles autobiographicaly.--Urthogie 21:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that policy written? I have enforced it several times, but always as a point of etiquette, not as an actual policy. I'd love to know where point people to the explanation. - Crenner 21:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Autobiography--Urthogie 21:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In his defense, from what I can tell: (a) he didn't start the article, and (b) the changes he made appear to be factual clarifications, some of which were more modest than the original wording (e.g., “The Futuristic Sex Robotz are the world’s first ‘Gangster Nerd Rap’ group” to “Futuristic Sex Robotz is a self-described ‘Gangster Nerd Rap’ group”). I do agree, though, that this probably still violates Wikipedia policy (I don‘t, however, agree that it‘s as cut-and-dry as a character judgement). (N.B.: I am a friend of Cellophane’s, though currently only online.) --Wevah 10:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have no clue what he's like as a person, I'm just saying that the premise of AFD is that you follow the guidelines in making your decision.--Urthogie 11:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable even if it skirts the poor guidelines at WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteNot notable. Nigelthefish 20:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would say that they pass WP:MUSIC by "establishing a tradition or school in a particular genre," in this case, the tradition of "Gangster Nerd Rap" within the "Nerdcore" genre. They would also pass by being "frequently covered in publications dedicated to a particular subculture" with mentions on Slashdot, as well as entire threads on Something Awful. NOTE: This is CellBlock's first edit. It's probably my last, as I mainly just read the WP and don't worry too much about it, but FSR really shouldn't be deleted. - Whoops, thought the timestamp was automatic. --CellBlock 06:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE:This user's only edits are on this vfd, and this user was created today.--Urthogie 07:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What exactly is the point of deleting this article? It's well-made, it describes a fairly well-known band with some unusual points and quite a strong following... just keep it, guys. Don't be pedantic. VJ Emsi 19:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i discovered the page via the nerd core hip-hop wiki page. this page provides information on a music group which has music released, and as far as i can tell, reached a significant audience.--Wakingrufus 21:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User's last edit was 3 months ago.--Urthogie 09:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many of your countless edits every day are just pointing out other people's regdates and number of comments? My guess is a lot. Also, if you refer back to WP:MUSIC, you'll see that the criteria for inclusion and proof of notability has been changed, completely nullifying this entire argument. You yourself even quoted the line that was changed earlier in this AFD page, finishing off with something along the lines of "Not only are they not Major media, theyre not music media". Oh well, because major music media is no longer a requirement. So your BASE argument of notability is rendered moot by the changes to WP:MUSIC. But my guess is you're going to stick around until you see this article deleted. Penmoid 18:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is now fairly well-written, band appears to be popular in their sub-sub-genre. I found these guys on [http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/ AD], and came to WP looking for real information about them. Glad this article was here. --Ultra Megatron 05:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:MUSIC has been changed, and those of you who are participating should review the changes and make your votes accordingly. Penmoid 18:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Their debut album has been quite successful considering it came out less than two weeks ago. GoodSirJava 02:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Urthogie Note: Quote his RegDate, I DARE YA Smitz 14:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Has VFD reached such a low point where we need to point out whos not a sockpuppet? :) --Urthogie 16:04, 3 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/Futuristic_Sex_Robotz&oldid=1137864997"