Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 Skinnee J's


 * 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The result was   Speedy keep Nomination withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

2 Skinnee J&

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Band barely passes WP:MUSIC criterion #5 (two releases on Capricorn) but fails all the other criteria, and the article is pure garbage. Read the entire "History" section for a laugh. Article has been flagged for cleanup since 2006. Time for it to go.

Full disclosure: I learned about the article's existence from Wikipedia Review. Mike R (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing nom. Article is no longer worthy of deletion. Mike R (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep WP:POINTy nomination. Nom even admits that subject meets notability but has apparently mistaken AFD for "Articles for Cleanup". There is a very good Allmusic bio which is a fine place to start. If articles were deleted simply by being "garbage", then we'd have virtually nothing left. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I dispute everything you just wrote. 1. This nomination is not disruptive, therefore not a violation of WP:POINT. 2 I know what AfD is for, and I believe that there comes a time when horrible articles should be deleted, even though their subject passes a notability criterion by the slimmest of margins. 3. I dispute that the Allmusic "bio" is "very good"; it is gushing and reads like it was written by the band's publicist or the president of their fan club. Mike R (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still a reliable source. I fail to see why we should delete a bad article on a good subject unless it's a copyvio, and I don't see how their notability is "slim". There are plenty of news sources to build on as well. You could always fix it yourself if it bothers you that much. I go through this all the time with the country music articles, almost all of which suck, and you don't see me deleting just because "it's garbage", do you? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see what others say. I am happy to withdraw a nomination if it is clear no one agrees with me. I would also like to request that you refactor your original comment by changing "speedy keep" into "keep" and removing the accusation of WP:POINTiness. Thanks, Mike R (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because that's exactly what I believe. I demolished the article and added a source, removing all the nonsense that nobody else (including you) could ever be arsed to clean out. Is it still "garbage" by your specs? I think I've reduced it to a workable stub. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Did 10 Pound Hammer just say that there would be "virtually nothing left" on Wikipedia, were the garbage to be removed? I don't necessarily disagree with this, but such sentiments are more apropos of dreary, curmudgeonly Wikipedia Review moderators than of avid kneejerk inclusionists. You should really switch sides. Yes, that was a reference to gay sex.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm neither a curmudgeonly Wikipedia Review moderator nor a kneejerk inclusionist. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And yet your rhetoric seems to embody the worst of both. Nicely done.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. All other back-and-forth off-topic conversation aside, the article meets the requirements for inclusion. Just because an article needs clean-up or a complete rewrite are not reasons for deletion. They are reasons for an attempt to improve. →JogCon← 16:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep They toured non-stop up and down the east coast for nearly 10 years generating tons of media coverage, put out three studio releases, had airtime on MTV when it still showed videos, were featured on at least one major film soundtrack (Drew Barrymore's Never Been Kissed, if I remember correctly) and easily blow past even the most stringent notability checks. As for some comments on Wikipedia Review that they might be fictional, or implying that--really?--I can assure everyone they're not, having met the band and seen them live over a dozen times in three states. rootology ( C )( T ) 17:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. No offense, but if you think your only two options when encountering a bad article to 1) criticize it on some webforum or 2) nominate it for deletion, then I don't think you understand some basic things about how Wikipedia works. I just added a source to the article, there are a lot more that could be added. The nomination doesn't make any sense... if this meets inclusion guidelines, then the article should be improved, not deleted. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I find your fallacious and condescending remark offensive. I understand perfectly how Wikipedia works. Mike R (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When why did you nominate an article for deletion when you admitted it met inclusion guidelines? The basis of Wikipedia is that if an article sucks, you can edit it. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2009 (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.