Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Utopian Apathy

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. - Mailer Diablo 22:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Utopian Apathy

Utopian Apathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:MUSIC Sigma 7 09:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Jayden54 10:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unverifiable with a whole 7 non-wiki ghits, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MER-C 13:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no sources, no albums, no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC.-- danntm ^T _C 20:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for vanity piece, no evidence this band will ever become notable and the article seems to have been written by the members themselves, or a fan. -Markeer 20:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Not Delete for their not really being any massive threat coming from the article. It's not like the entire Wikipedia index will crumble after one attempt at a band page is allowed. - WikiMan52 20:56, 28 November — WikiMan52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment well, that's very dramatic friend, but the AfD process is intended to prune unneeded or inappropriate articles. If the best argument you have is this one, that simply means this article should go. -Markeer 11:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Retort Why is it unnecessary? I don't think it has no use at all. It has given me information and so therefore it is not useless. How also is it inappropriate? I don't see any swear words or wrong themes, so why is there all this fuss? - MusikFan68 1:15, 1 December — MusikFan68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Not DeleteWhy not? A wiki is a website for sharing information. You'll be sorry when they make the big time and you denied them a page on the website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.29.67.179 (talk • contribs)

• Comment If this band becomes notable at some point in the future, I have no doubt an article about them will be created then. In the meantime, please refer to wikipedia's guidelines regarding criteria for musical group notability. No one is saying that this group will never become important or have an article. The delete votes above seem to be based on the fact that this group is not notable now, making a wikipedia entry inappropriate. -Markeer 04:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I noticed that all three improperly-signed opposition comments are from new anonymous users - one of which has vandal warnings. While not a problem in itself, it means that your votes might not be counted. Even so, there is no justification presented to keep the article. As you should know, the threat is created from the cumulation of individual articles which make Wikipedia harder to maintain - my case in point is Defendant, where a single person seems to think their garage rock band is notable. The information obtained from these types of page are unreliable at best, where the most reliable is a link to a myspace page. This Myspace page allows the owner of the page to share as much information as he wants to, thus not requiring any justification for notability.
  If there are no serious objections to the deletion, I claim that the concensus has been reached. --Sigma 7 05:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that we're here to form a consensus, so there's no "voting" per se. That said, I do detect a consensus emerging, to which I will now add...

• Delete per nom. Re: the unsigned comment above: if they "make the big time" I'll be at the head of the queue supporting an article about them. But the time is not yet. WMMartin 17:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Why is it that you so-called wikipedia users lash out at pages you deem to be nonsense, whilst still having your own pages which contain far worse that that found in this article? If you users believe that this article is taking up unwanted space, I believe that you should turn around and check out your own pages because they are much more of a waste than this article. For example, User:Markeer 's page contains something on Boxes and a picture from Star Trek. It seems to appear that this holds no possible information to the community at large and that it is helping no one furthering their knowledge. Since you believe in sharing useful information, the fact that you will be hypocrites and delete a perfectly good page, whilst sparing your useless ones. LB1, 13:26, 2 December 2006
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Sharkface217 03:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Update there, the page has now been updated/edited, therefore removing any context of it being a prediction (crystal ball), It is now just informative. Leprechaunboy
• Retort Wikipedia is a FREE encyclopaedia, and it is fair that they can set up an article. How is it that it is wasting space when there are more useless articles, it is free and everyone has a right to contribute

• The key word in your response is encyclopedia. To be an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must not be an indiscriminate collection of information. That means we don't write about every single band out there, only the more notable ones. And inclusion is not an indicator of notability. MER-C 09:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Thank you for letting us know about the other useless articles. If you feel such articles in the main namespace (i.e. encyclopedia articles) need to be removed, then you can follow the standard deletion guidelines to bring them to our attention. --Sigma 7 12:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not Delete User "Markeer" is not a renowned person/band, yet his wikipedia page continues to exist, while the Band Utopian Apathy is a more notbale one. If anything, Utopian APthy's page should continue to exist and Markeer's page should be deleted as it gives no relevant output to the wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maco.c (talk • contribs) 10:26, 2 December 2006

What are you talking about? His user page isn't included in the encyclopedia because it's under the 'User' namespace, as you can see in the URL, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Markeer. The Utopian Apathy article on the other hand is in the encyclopedia, and must therefore be notable enough, which it isn't. Jayden54 11:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate procedure is to correct the issue by requesting deletion of content, not state that you need to keep content because "less-important" content is present. In case of User namepace pages, those are less likely to be deleted, since it gives a general guideline about the experience of the other user (i.e. he is more likely to know about Star Trek than others.) and that it has a linked talk page that permits Wikipedia-based communication. Likewise, if you believe the article has merit, the article needs to be written in that fashion, and not fall into known article patterns known to be deleted. Try taking a look at linked from List of bands to see plenty of articles that were not deleted, since they rely on solid content without looking like an advert. --Sigma 7 12:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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.