Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cedars (band)

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. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cedars (band)[edit]

This band falls below our usual standards in WP:MUSIC: They haven't released a single album yet, there's no indication of charted hits, national or international tours with wide coverage in the press, etc. Some coverage in a webzine and a (minor?) music publication is claimed, but I doubt that they can be considered notable at this time - maybe in some years, but not now. PROD was contested by the original author (see contribution history). B. Wolterding (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 19:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC/WP:NOTE. There is a high number of ghits, but nothing to establish notability. Best reference seems to be [1], which isn't enough. --Amalthea^Talk 20:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion Isn't Warranted Um, if I've heard them on the radio in the United States, I think they're "notable" enough to have an article. Where do you think I came to immediately after first hearing their music? Duh, Wikipedia. I'm glad "notability" isn't a good enough yardstick to keep us from HEARING music, then there would be nothing but Britney Spears on the radio. Moreover, this is a little more than your run of the mill "bar band" that is unknown outside of its hometown (but then why would those also not be eligible for an article in the ~internet~ age? Is not the purpose of this medium to ~disseminate~ information rather than withhold it?). Moreover, I'm sure there's far more obscure topics on Wikipedia outside the category of music that even fewer people are familiar with, and yet those articles generate no controversy by their mere presence and simultaneous obscurity. I'm actually a little stunned that people actually sit around looking for stuff to DELETE from Wikipedia, rather tan ADD to. Server capacity is in the terabytes now, and text doesn't occupy much of a footprint, jeesh. Nevermind, I thought this was the band with the same name from Washington D.C. (which I could have swore had an article here before). Nevertheless, this policy seems a little overbearing. How many obscure 70's bands that are no longer around and had nearly zero fans have articles on Wikipedia?I would still think, in general, Wikipedia would embrace addition over subtraction.--Biturica (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (as a note, Biturica's opinion seems to have changed...) — Scientizzle 21:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and as we were editing this at the same time it seems, I had to try twice to update my opinion here.--Biturica (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for "addition over subtraction", I think this article is a very good example why we absolutely need inclusion criteria like WP:MUSIC. There are just too many minor bands, we can't write and maintain articles about all of them. That's not a question of server space, it's one of editing capacity. Without objective inclusion criteria, we'd be no different from Myspace: We'd cover any band for which someone is willing to write an article - and the less known a band is, the higher the likelihood that this someone is close to the band, or worse, the band itself... (You see, I have some vague suspicions regarding the original author.) By the way, I think getting people who add band articles to Wikipedia seems to be our least concern - getting people who clean up the mess is harder. --B. Wolterding (talk) 22:08, 15 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.