| Revision as of 22:20, 18 October 2006 editParsssseltongue (talk | contribs)1,712 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:56, 18 October 2006 edit undoZoe (talk | contribs)35,376 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
| **Thank you for demonstrating the prejudice some editors on Misplaced Pages have. So what is they're two-piece? And as I've stated again and again, a major label affiliation does not equal notability. There are other signs of notability, which have not only been asserted, but cited (and by reliable sources, not non-trvial as some seem to be erroneously reporting). ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | **Thank you for demonstrating the prejudice some editors on Misplaced Pages have. So what is they're two-piece? And as I've stated again and again, a major label affiliation does not equal notability. There are other signs of notability, which have not only been asserted, but cited (and by reliable sources, not non-trvial as some seem to be erroneously reporting). ] <sup>(])</sup> 22:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Endorse closure of AfD2''' - I support Yamangani's postition that the arguments led to no consensus. AfD is not a vote. - ] 21:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | *'''Endorse closure of AfD2''' - I support Yamangani's postition that the arguments led to no consensus. AfD is not a vote. - ] 21:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' based on AfD2. Clearly fails ], ] and ]. ]|] 22:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:56, 18 October 2006
| < October 17 | October 19 > |
|---|
- Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 October)
18 October 2006
The Demented Cartoon Movie
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Demented Cartoon Movie (2nd nomination) I noticed the article was determined to be deleted. The debate page had just come up with a few better examples as to the articles qualifications on Misplaced Pages, but there was no comment on these points as the article was shut down. I would like to hear what the administrator based their closing on, and relist. Any information would be appreciated! --Ridesim 16:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I was the closing administrator. The arguments for deletion were based around the fact that there was an absence of material meeting verifiability, reliable sources, and original research. The arguments for keep mainly consisting of vague assertions of notability being based on appearances in several other not particularly notable internet animations/media. Being listed on Albinoblacksheep is fairly trivial and hardly a measure of notability. Wickethewok 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure - AFD was conducted correctly, and a review of the comments made indicates that there was no non-trivial references to the topic to be had. A flash cartoon referring to a flash cartoon is not a reliable source. An established magazine or newspaper referring to a flash cartoon is - but there was no indication of such existing. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure To fully see the references added to the AFD, go into edit mode on the AFD page, add the <references/> tag, and preview. What we get is 1) urban dictionary, 2) you-tube and 3) video.google.com. These are not reliable sources as they are sites that anyone can edit, which is the reason that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source by our standards. GRBerry 21:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In this case the claim that a flash movie is of encyclopaedic notability requires evidence in the form of it having been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. As noted above, no such evidence has been provided. Guy 21:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse colsure: Although Wickethewok was active in the first AfD there is no sign that he applied any bias in the closure of the second. Those voting keep never addressed the issues in WP:WEB. If there was a case to be made based on unique hits per WP:GOOGLE or traffic per alexa rank, it was not made in the debate. -MrFizyx 21:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't realize I was active in the original AFD discussion... 0_o. Just to make it clear, my closure on this AFD was independent of my comment in the first AFD, which occurred about 1/2 year ago. Wickethewok 21:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Sixth Party System
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sixth Party System
This article has had a somewhat tortured history. It was prodded, deleted, and the deletion was brought here. It received six Endorse deletion !votes before it was sent to AfD as a contested prod. Because of this, the AfD had no deletion argument at all for a while. The deletion argument is straightforward:
- This is an obscure addendum to V. O. Key's Fifth Party System. It reflects the views of a single paper that the Sixth Party System began in 1964, and ended in 1994. This itself is one of 23 papers variously dating the beginning of the Sixth Party System between 1960 and the present. Some of them mention the Sixth Party System only to deny it has begun. These in turn are a small fraction of the hundreds of papers on critical elections in the United States.
I do not believe that any of the keep !votes (except KChase, who has a copy; I look forward to his expanded version) even addresses this argument, save by ungrounded assertions that there must be more scholarly papers out there somewhere. If so, scholar.google.com and JSTOR have not found them.
If we take out the dates, we are left with the dicdef: "After the Fifth Party System comes the Sixth Party System." (This is itself not uncontroversial: some scholars think the Fifth Party System has been replaced by a system of dealignment.)
Insofar as what I have said here has encyclopedic content, it is in Fifth Party System. So I propose to overturn and delete. Septentrionalis 15:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- As the closing admin, my reasoning was that neither the delete arguments nor the keep arguments were fully addressed, and there seemed to be no clear thoughts as to whether it should be redirected. I disregarded the OR claims concerning the fact that the Sixth Party System must have come into existence by now, but I did note Uncle G's point of Aldrich's claim and Septentrionalis' own research revealing that articles had been written concerning at least the concept of a Sixth Party System. The claims made in the article may have been badly skewed toward the existence of a Sixth Party System, but I judged that would be a matter for cleanup or merging (as I stated when closing).Yomangani 16:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- While I think this really should have closed as a clear keep due to the obvious references to the system, endorse closure anyway. I originally said keep due to UncleG's statement, but looking back at it, I'm more compelled by Septentrionalis's delete recommendation, where he notes the amount of citations. The article needs to be written accurately, for sure, but that's not a reason for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn, delete, userfy on request. Closing admins need to understand that they are guardians of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR first, guardians of consensus second. The article is, after 5 days of prodding and 11 days of discussion, still wholly unsourced. The onus to establish keepability per those three policies is on the editors, and in extension keep voters. Instead of positive evidence we mostly got assertions and "looks good to me" waffle during the AfD. As long as this article doesn't establish that it isn't OR and reflects more than a fringe PoV it has no business in the mainspace. ~ trialsanderrors 18:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a better solution at this stage be to take the citations available at the AfD and incorporate them? It's one thing if sources don't exist, it's another completely if they just haven't been incorporated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- The AfD makes only one citation for this idea; that's all there is. That's the problem. I think trying to put in an average of all 23 articles would look like the last paragraph of Fifth Party System, and that's not an article. Septentrionalis 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Stubs aren't bad things, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Neither are redirects. ~ trialsanderrors 18:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- But stubs are better than redirects. Or something. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not always. ~ trialsanderrors 19:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I was being somewhat coy with that last response, but I'm not entirely sure how your links qualify with this situaiton. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- This article gives undue weight to Aldrich's single, rarely cited view (one of the five papers that does is also on the list; it cites him for the 1994 critical election, but denies the 1964-8 critical election.) Septentrionalis 19:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- So merely having the article gives it undue weight? This is a new one for me. Am I missing something? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." ~ trialsanderrors 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Right, I don't think that qualifies here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." ~ trialsanderrors 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- So merely having the article gives it undue weight? This is a new one for me. Am I missing something? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- This article gives undue weight to Aldrich's single, rarely cited view (one of the five papers that does is also on the list; it cites him for the 1994 critical election, but denies the 1964-8 critical election.) Septentrionalis 19:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I was being somewhat coy with that last response, but I'm not entirely sure how your links qualify with this situaiton. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Not always. ~ trialsanderrors 19:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- But stubs are better than redirects. Or something. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Neither are redirects. ~ trialsanderrors 18:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Stubs aren't bad things, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- The AfD makes only one citation for this idea; that's all there is. That's the problem. I think trying to put in an average of all 23 articles would look like the last paragraph of Fifth Party System, and that's not an article. Septentrionalis 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't a better solution at this stage be to take the citations available at the AfD and incorporate them? It's one thing if sources don't exist, it's another completely if they just haven't been incorporated. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn and Delete It's original research. Deleting it should be strightforward. Why is this still a question? Eusebeus 19:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn and delete, due to absence of discussion in the academic press. This is notionally an academic concept, so if it's not covered by several papers in the peer-reviewed journals it's somewhere between original research and a report of one man's protologism. Guy 21:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: seems that very little content could meet WP:V, why not merge and redirect to Fifth Party System? -MrFizyx 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Andrew Jackson Jihad
This article was renominated on AFD less than two hours after the previous AFD closed, because the nominator did not agree with the decision of the closing admin (no consensus).
- The more recent AFD can be found here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jackson Jihad 3
- The one that closed 2 hours earlier: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Andrew Jackson Jihad 2
This is a procedural listing, so I offer no opinion on the matter. --Coredesat 01:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Consensus to delete present. A case of Misplaced Pages:Discuss, don't vote and misadressed argument. Discussions in both the first and second AFD's clearly favoured deletion, and the claims to notability in the most recent revisions of the article are approaching Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering in their tenuousness. An uncited claim that they are "representative of the Arizona DIY ethic" as an attempt to meet 's requirement of "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style", for instance.
- Additionally, the original afd here stated that the necessary guideline to meet was WP:BAND, not WP:MUSIC, while the keep arguments of the 2nd nomination all focused on WP:MUSIC. Finally, the votes have repeatedly been canvassed by User:Parsssseltongue. --tjstrf 03:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC are the same thing. Morgan Wick 06:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn AfD 3, delete based on AfD 2, and salt. AfD 3 was out of process, but the nom's heart was in the right place. The delete votes clearly beat out the keep votes on AfD 2 even as is; when you strip out the solicited keep votes, there's no question. --Aaron 03:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please read up on AfD its not a vote. --NuclearZer0 18:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete article based on reasonable consensus from AFD2 Votes that were stacked/canvassed should be discounted and removed from consideration. The amount of vote canvassing that occured in AFD3 was incredible, even if the editor claims that votes were solicited from both sides of the arguement. --NMChico24 07:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Agreed. I count 27 instances of canvassing in less than ten minutes. He did seem to get people who were against keeping the article as well in the previous debate, but in AFD3 most voted close due to the relative timing of the two. --tjstrf 07:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment as closing admin on second AFD - Firstly, it is not a vote, so 11-5 doesn't convince me to delete, just that it needs closer examination. Secondly there were a number of people expressing their opinion that the notability was borderline (not just the keepers, but some who abstained or just commented), and not all these points were addressed by those advocating deletion. Thirdly, the canvassing seemed to have the opposite of the desired effect if anything (a number of the canvassed editors strongly recommended deleting), so although it would have perhaps been fitting to delete the article as "punishment", that's not the way it works. Finally, the article had already been rescued from deletion via DRV, so I was expecting any delete decision to be challenged at DRV, possibly leading to relisting at AFD (which I was fruitlessly hoping to avoid). Since there was no consensus I closed it as such (the guidelines state that if there is any doubt do not delete). The editor who opened the third AFD stated that they did not necessarily disagree with the closing decision, but just wanted to get consensus by having another AFD. Yomangani 09:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Yomangani makes some reasonable points, but the closure of AFD2 should have been delete. Eusebeus 09:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Talk page notifications of AfD's are not canvassing if they fall under "friendly notices" (see WP:SPAM#Friendly_notice). So to invalidate the solicited !votes it also needs to be shown that User:Parsssseltongue had a specific goal in mind when selecting those editors (since the notes themselves are generally neutral). Of course (s)he also did it for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/HeartattaCk. ~ trialsanderrors 09:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there is the fact that the people notified were the keep voters from the first AFD, while nobody else who commented on the AFD or expressed an interest was notified. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Other editors who had not participated in the previous AFD were notified as well on the basis that they had "participated in other music related AFDs", so it wasn't a cut and dried selection of only the keep voters from the previous AFD (and since the canvassed editors could think for themselves, it didn't have the effect of generating a keep anyway). Yomangani 10:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- But those who were contacted had voted only Keep on previous AFDs. There was a clear bias there. Halo 14:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Double checked. Clear canvassing. ~ trialsanderrors 17:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- But those who were contacted had voted only Keep on previous AFDs. There was a clear bias there. Halo 14:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Other editors who had not participated in the previous AFD were notified as well on the basis that they had "participated in other music related AFDs", so it wasn't a cut and dried selection of only the keep voters from the previous AFD (and since the canvassed editors could think for themselves, it didn't have the effect of generating a keep anyway). Yomangani 10:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, there is the fact that the people notified were the keep voters from the first AFD, while nobody else who commented on the AFD or expressed an interest was notified. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse. Nothign invalid about this closure, really. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse previous decision, let it go there was nothing wrong with the decision made, its not simply a vote count but if there are logical and understandable arguements made by both sides then there is obviously no concensus on the topic. --NuclearZer0 12:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse. The second AFD looks like a "no consensus" to me, so I have to agree with Yomangami's decision. -Hit bull, win steak 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Consensus to delete - It's a long story how I got here, but basically, I believe that was concensus on the 2nd AFD. Apparently the 3rd AFD was too soon (I didn't realise that it was bad karma to quickly relist No Consensus votes to try and establish one, but apparently so and this should be said somewhere), so I retracted that based on advice there, and here we are. There were several more delete votes, the AFD was dodgy due to canvassing (he only contacted those who previously voted "keep" on related AFDs) and even if you follow that AFD is a discussion and not a straight vote count, then this becomes even clearer if you read the discussion - those who voted Keep have very few arguments, while does who voted delete generally had indepth responses explaining their point of view - I even did a point by point breakdown of how it fails WP:MUSIC on the 3rd AFD. Surely if it's not a vote, then "Delete" put up a much better case? I have a feeling doing this will just result in it going to /yet another/ AFD once this is over though, as I do understand how someone could get "No Consensus" even if I personally disagree. Halo 14:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I am going to abstain from !voting in this discussion, as I participated in both the original AfD and the post-DRV AfD2, !voting delete both times. Even though I moved for deletion in the second AfD, Parssssel- with whom I have a long-standing friendly relationship even though we disagree on the majority of AfD issues- did invite me to participate in the quickly-made third AfD. I can't vouch for anyone else PT "solicited", but in his defense, I was told about the third AfD despite my prior objections to the article. -- Kicking222 14:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't believe he canvassed the 3rd AfD (having seen my comments about it actually in the AfD itself), but I believe he did on the 2nd. Examples of people who got messages on their talk page: User:TruthbringerToronto - who tends to vote Keep and voted Keep, User:MrFizyx who voted Keep, User:Antmoney85, having very few edits, previously voting mainly "No Vote" was contacted who voted "Keep", User:Messwemade, User:AQu01rius who both voted keep on Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/F.Y.P. User:Superlex and User:Ac@osr, User:badlydrawnjeff, User:Kitsune_Sniper and me who voted Keep on Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Rival_Schools_(band). I'm sure there's more. Note that /most/ of these also voted Keep, but not all, on the AFD. If these messages hadn't been sent, I believe that the AFD would have had a Delete consensus. -Halo 14:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- For the record, I would have voted keep on this upon seeing it in my daily AfD review. His contacting me about it had nothing to do with my position on this article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment on the above analysis by Halo: This is misleading (though probably not intentionally). He names seven users who were contacted regarding AfD2 and states, "Note that /most/ of these also voted Keep, but not all, on the AFD." I only count two that voted "keep" in AfD2. "Most" appear not to have commented in AfD2. I myself voted keep in AfD1, and commented, but abstained from AfD2. -MrFizyx 20:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- 'Comment: Fair point. Lets say there were two that voted keep in AfD2 as a direct relation to the comments (TruthbringerToronto and SuperLex), and 1 less delete vote (mine). This would lead to 10/3, or 76% delete to 24% keep, which is quite a significant difference and may have altered the result. The practise should certainly be frowned on. Halo 21:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- reply: Actually I missed "Superlex" in my tally, so 3, not 2 out of your list. Yes, the practise must be discouraged, hence my response to it. Still the closure is not to be punitive. -MrFizyx 22:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm insulted by your accusation, Halo. Please assume good faith. I had seen that AfD before PT commented on my talk page. I was actually in the process of examining that page, its talk page, and its sources when I saw the "talk page message box" at the top of my screen. I even commented at PT's talk page about how spooky it was to recieve his message at the same time I was looking at the article. My "keep" vote was based on my belief that the article passes WP:MUSIC and not because any other poster told me to. So, once again Halo, please assume good faith. - Lex 21:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC) (forgot that part)
- Comment - I don't believe he canvassed the 3rd AfD (having seen my comments about it actually in the AfD itself), but I believe he did on the 2nd. Examples of people who got messages on their talk page: User:TruthbringerToronto - who tends to vote Keep and voted Keep, User:MrFizyx who voted Keep, User:Antmoney85, having very few edits, previously voting mainly "No Vote" was contacted who voted "Keep", User:Messwemade, User:AQu01rius who both voted keep on Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/F.Y.P. User:Superlex and User:Ac@osr, User:badlydrawnjeff, User:Kitsune_Sniper and me who voted Keep on Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Rival_Schools_(band). I'm sure there's more. Note that /most/ of these also voted Keep, but not all, on the AFD. If these messages hadn't been sent, I believe that the AFD would have had a Delete consensus. -Halo 14:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse I'm not sure this DRV is going to solve anything. User:Yomangani made a judgement call and it was well within his right to do so; AfD isn't a straight count. That said, I see no evidence that this band meets WP:MUSIC unless one is being very generous in applying it. The did a "club and basement" tour, and there is a weak contention that they are notable on the local scene (though I must give props to any band that covers In the Aeroplane Over the Sea). That said, I think the best bet is to let the article stand, WP:CHILL and if somene wants to AfD this in another 2-3 months, go for it, unless of course Andrew Jackson Jihad strongly and verifiably meets WP:MUSIC at that point.--Isotope23 14:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete based on AFD2. Parsseltongue has a habit of creating articles for no-name groups, canvassing support for the delete articles (even going outside of Misplaced Pages to do so), and generally fogging things up. —Chowbok 15:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have NEVER gone outside of Misplaced Pages. Please strike that comment. PT 17:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Consensus to Delete established imo in AFD2, should be deleted and salted if necessary. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Said with full respect to Yomangani, his decision and his right to make it. Deizio talk 15:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- A look through all the discussion thus far indicates to me that the majority of the 'keep' side in the AfDs was carried by PT, who has a definite and laudable passion for indie groups. But despite PT's passion and debating skills, the consideration really should have been for the arguments made with regards to WP:MUSIC, which to me haven't been met by this band. Mainly, I focus on the two albums or national touring thing, and it would appear this band fails both. The sources given are iffy, to me, and whether they can be classified as reliable sources is debatable (the blog, for example, is right out, and the student papers are questionable - this from a guy who edited one). Thus, I believe there was a consensus to delete present in the second AfD; its closure should be reversed and the article deleted. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- The concensus at WP:RS is that student papers meet the criteria. I had originally argued they did not, but was proven that college papers do meet the criteria according to those that frequent WP:RS. The issue was their credibility was not diminished solely because of their audience. I was then presented with facts about how some college papers have XYZ range of penetration audiences etc. --NuclearZer0 18:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure of AfD, endorse keeping article. There is a definite philosophical difference on Misplaced Pages betweeen people who think it should contain only radio-played and major-label bands. But the criteria of WP:MUSIC allows for DIY bands, because even a DIY will generate coverage if notable enough. There wasn't a consensus for notability on the first AfD, and the article was deleted. I waited a few months until there was more coverage. I asked for a content reivew, had the old article placed on my userspace, and added the new citations to further assert notability. Not 2 minutes after I posted the article, it went up for AfD. There was much discussion, and yes, I was short-sighted in only giving friendly notices to editors who voted keep in the first AfD, though most of my notices were to editors from other music-related AfDs who seemed to know what they were talking about. That doesn't mean they each agreed with me. Like I said, there is a philosophical difference, and there was no consensus. I don't expect us to reach one anytime soon, which is why a default keep seems wise. This will allow for the article to be expanded, and even though I stand behind the reliability of the sources I cited (and that other editors, such as MrFizyx, provided), I'm sure there will be even more and even reliable sources to expand upon. That is the spirit of Misplaced Pages. All this "delete, salt the earth" nonsense goes against the aim of the project. When the third AfD opened, I let EVERYONE know... "keep" and "delete" voters alike. This isn't a band that has been around a month comprised of high schoolers who put up a MySpace. This is the leader of a movement in the fourth largest city in the United States. PT 17:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn AfD2, delete, otherwise relist. Blatant attempt at AfD manipulation, not the first time from the same user. ~ trialsanderrors 17:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure of AfD2 by Yomangani: Admin's closing comments show clear thought process and that the topics in this discussion were given consideration. I wish more closures were done as such. Others would have read the tea leaves differently, but nothing stated here provides clear cause for a reversal. -MrFizyx 20:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Overturn and delete. Why are we even having this discussion? This is a local two-piece band, it has no commericlaly released albums, there is no evidence of touring, no evidence of being signed with a major (or indeed any) label, no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable sources - it's perilously close to an A7 speedy. Look at the publicity photo for God's sake! Come back when they have a recording deal and a couple of commercial albums under their belt. Guy 21:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for demonstrating the prejudice some editors on Misplaced Pages have. So what is they're two-piece? And as I've stated again and again, a major label affiliation does not equal notability. There are other signs of notability, which have not only been asserted, but cited (and by reliable sources, not non-trvial as some seem to be erroneously reporting). PT 22:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Endorse closure of AfD2 - I support Yamangani's postition that the arguments led to no consensus. AfD is not a vote. - Lex 21:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete based on AfD2. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V and WP:RS. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)