Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unseen Vision
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. --Ezeu 22:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unseen Vision[edit]
Only asserion of notability is the drummer once played in a band who is signed to an indie label that has an article. This nth degree of notability does not satisfy WP:MUSIC for me. Delete. Rockpocket (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I had to read that four or five times before I got that. Nobody in the band is notable enough to have an article. Nobody's former band is notable enough to have an article. And to top it off, the band hasn't even released a CD yet. Even I have more notability than that. Delete per nom. (Also, a quick note to User:Talemir that AfD isn't done by "voting" per person, but by consensus of the established Wikipedia community. See this diff for details.) TheProject 21:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We do not cover bands "for when they do make it". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and can't predict who will and who won't. Become notable first, then get the article. Fan1967 21:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is about a band who's name is already copywritten, and the article is based on FACT and is not a biast opinion. Vincent 22:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: first of all, names don't get copyrighted, they get trademarked. Second of all, I've trademarked the name VaniDelete™ -- does my product get a Wikipedia article? (And in case you don't get it, the answer is no, because it's not notable.) Wikipedia is not the patent and trademark office; if we were, we would've reached that millionth article a hell of a lot faster. TheProject 00:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is considered bad form to delete earlier comments, even your own, from an AfD discussion. I have restored them. Fan1967 00:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am still new to this site and trying to figure out how it all works. You don't have to be so rude. I am also changing my user name, so if you could delete my other or let me know how to then I will do so. User:Talemir. I did not know it was bad form to delete other posts, but as you can see it says it is basically a vote for yes with a descriptive reason why. If the band page really is not notable enough then it will be deleted, votes or not; do they really matter?
- Delete crap. vanity. ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|[reply]
- Comment: True, but I thought maybe enough votes for yes would ensure it could stay. I understand how this community works a little better now and I appologize for imposing so much, and pushing the article. But in plain black and white, if it doesn't meet require criteria; then it must go. This is User:Talemir btw, I changed my user name as you can plainly see. You may delete it whenever you see fit, I have saved the info IF they make it. Although it is my personal view from working with them that they will, but only time will tell.
Big Boss Ocelot 03:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Good luck to them. It may be that you'll have the opportunity to recreate the article in the future, after they've achieved some public success. Fan1967 02:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thanks for all the help, I will tell them you said that; but I also noticed that there is nothing for super natural? What would I have to do to add that? Since the super natural world is not prooven to the full extent, and most of the 'facts' people have are about personal experience.
Big Boss Ocelot 03:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: supernatural (one word) should do it. Rockpocket (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Even if you met requirements mentioned thus far, please note that it is still a biased article. No matter how much you know that it is all true, you have yet to prove it. The article has no citations and references to any information outside of wikipedia that isn't a myspace website, and the main reason for that is because outside of your claim that the band was mentioned on a radio station, band has not been mentioned or talked about on any reliable source. No, even if you saved ticket stubs from Unseen Vision shows, they are not good enough. It is probably best to just let it go, and create a website for the band using Geocities or something. Please also note that the supernatural is not proven "to the full extent," as you say, but it does meet Wikipedia's standards. By the way, the Wikipedia standards are available for anyone to read. If you could just read the standards, there would be no debate as to what "the full extent" is, because what is important is the extent that wikipedia has asked for, the extent which has not been met... As it stands it is quite clearly suitable for deletion for an orgy of reasons. -- SB 06:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thanks User:Rockpocket I didn't even think of that lol. Btw Sean, I understand and I already said delete it. But the band however does have it's own website. / .com to proove it is all true, you can go see for yourself. www.unseenvision.com, but this still doesn not classify the article or the band to be notable. I understand the rules a lot better today then I did months ago, I will tell you that much! haha
Big Boss Ocelot 08:18, 8 May 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.