Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angels Wake


 * 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.  howch e  ng   {chat} 20:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Angels Wake
Do not meet WP:MUSIC. Has released one EP, and speculations of future tours is crystal ball-ish. Punkmorten 08:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep it. There are several bands listed that don't even HAVE anything else or HAVE any media coverage or airplay at ALL, they only have a one sentence description of their local bands. Have you clicked any of the links? Everything is legit and completely checks out. It doesn't make any sense to only add bands that have won grammys or been in the top ten. It completely precludes bands and artists with a decent following that happen to be independant and up and coming artists. TaeKwonTimmy 09:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Of 's twenty-one edits, all achieved within a twelve-hour timespan, eleven are to Angels Wake, one to List of Christian alternative bands, two to Requested articles/music, one to his user talk page, and the rest to this AfD.

Keep itI dont see the point of deleting information for an up and coming band when that kind of information is what people search for the most. I dont follow why it should be deleted. Even with popular bands, tours are 'crystal ballish'. This site is becoming more and more popular by the day and I think the more you allow people to submit information, the more visits this will get. People always search for new music, and what helps them search for it are websites with information. All the links given are very helpful. Theres no reason at all this page should be deleted because it is very informative and it doesnt just give you the same biography you'll find anywhere else. I vote stay.--Deadb0lt 10:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)  has five edits, all to this AfD.
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a place to find new music. Punkmorten 10:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I used the word several times, information information information. quote:

"what helps them search for it are websites with information"

--Deadb0lt 10:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

You still have no valid claim as to why it should be deleted. It's not exactly a seedy, local band and the WP Music Guidelines are not policy.--TaeKwonTimmy 10:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:MUSIC is not policy because notability for musicians is strechable in certain cases. This is not one of them. Without a label or a contract, EP releases and tour dates are pretty much crystal-balled, and we are WP:NOT in the business of predicting if or when a small band will make it big time. Also, don't think that Wikipedia's music articles are solely big bands — my personal favorite, Floater (band) is here despite being unheard of outside of Oregon. Good luck to the band, but they're simply not notable enough for inclusion. - CorbinSimpson 10:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"Without a label or a contract, EP releases and tour dates are pretty much crystal-balled" Then you should delete all of your indy bands from your database.If you check out the christian music news link, Angels Wake is listed among big artists like Skillet and Switchfoot.--TaeKwonTimmy 10:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC) The article by the way, has been edited to only include factual information. No daydreams involved.--TaeKwonTimmy 10:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I dont understand how Floater can be notable enough and not Angels Wake. I understand that yes they may only be on the east coast, but Floater is only heard in Oregon? Being on a label, or having a contract shouldnt be a factor in whether or not they should be on an informative website. The links are there, theyll take you to sites where the music is up, where itll show you what theyre involved in, and whats coming up. None of their information has been 'crystal ballish', its all pretty legit and will happen. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I just dont get how someone not hearing of the band is a good enough reason not to keep this up.--Deadb0lt 10:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Floater probably passes one of the other criteria set in WP:MUSIC, not having a label isn't the end of it. As long as they cover at least one of the criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 22:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: Floater released 8 albums, Angels Wake one EP. B.Wind 01:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * keep cos.....heck I just WANNA! (and Wiki is not paper if you want a "valid" reason) Jcuk 11:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete cos.....heck I just WANNA! because there is no evidence that the band meets WP:MUSIC, and none of the people who complain about those guidelines ever seem to come up with a more practical standard of notability for musical artists.  Some of the people who complain don't even seem to understand the current standard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment some of us think that a band being verifiable is good enough. Chances are "The Beatles" are going to be verifiable, whereas "Freddie and the Flintstones" who've practiced in Fred's dad's garage three times aren't. Jcuk 23:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Punkmorten and CorbinSimpson. - Mgm|(talk) 22:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Google search the band. 2. They meet the varificatin qualifications. 3. Nobody has yet to address my question as to why even less known bands are on here. Gnarly-skull ???? --TaeKwonTimmy 23:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Apparently Gnarly-skull has been speedy deleted. How about that? If you see other less known bands, you are more than welcome to nominate them for deletion. Punkmorten 16:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Nah, it's cool, I'm not into fascism. :) TaeKwonTimmy 00:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"Deadb0lt (talk • contribs) has five edits, all to this AfD."

Additionally, if you mean to imply that I am either user:Jcuk or user:Deadb0lt, I'm certain the admins can provide you with ample evidence (Including IPs) to the contrary. Although you appear to be more interested in smearing people with opinions which differ from your own. Cheers! :) -Tim --TaeKwonTimmy 03:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Huh, my last comment seems to have vanished. Eh. Anyways, stop the flaming. TaeKwonTimmy, two things: Thanks! - CorbinSimpson 07:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * First, you claim that this article meets WP:MUSIC. I would like to see how it does. I'll gladly change my vote right here and now if it meets requirements that I somehow overlooked.
 * Second, please don't call us fascists. We are not restricting information. We are merely trying to expediently use the available bandwidth to best serve visitors of Wikipedia. From the number of speedy deletes and AfD requests made daily, I can safely say that bandwidth must be horrendously expensive for the owners of Wikipedia. Thus, they don't want articles that can't satisfy certain encyclopaedic requirements to be taking up server space and wasting bandwidth. Just because the server is in the USA, that does not make it a fascist website.

First off, I was not intending to be rude towards you, so if you took anything personally, I apologize. Secondly, I wasn't flaming, I was defending myself. Somone posted anonymously trying to mar my character and I reacted as most people would have. Secondly: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, dj etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" (emphasis mine) "Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network." Netwavz radio (an internet station with a national and international audience) has done an hour interview with Angels Wake which will be broadcast on their website the 29th of this month. You can check out the radio station @ www.netwavzradio.com. I apologize if I reacted harshly to you, you've been polite, respectful and reasonable. --TaeKwonTimmy 08:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * TaeKwonTimmy, you are blatant violation of the No personal attacks and Civility policies. You are also greatly in error on a number of points:
 * I did not feel the "need to be anonymous" when I, as per well-established AfD tradition, posted notes concerning your contributions and the fact that they came nowhere near Wikipedia's traditionally-held "voting age". Such notations are traditionally unsigned because they discourage the useless but still frequently-seen practice of ignoring the facts presented and attacking the messenger -- as you have indeed done -- but anyone who knows what they're doing on Wikipedia knows that they can check who left what comment just by reading the history of the article.
 * "You also apparently didn't read ALL my contributions (see boomslang)." If you mean this edit, that edit was made by IP address .  Someone sharp-eyed might indeed have spotted that 30.149's first contribution (one of two) was signed "TaeKwonTimmy" and thus assumed that you could be credited with all that anon address's two contributions.  However, you cannot reasonably expect that when checking edit histories, we should look for all anon addresses that you could have been using prior and count their contributions as your own.  (By the way, what is the difference between stating that the boomslang's fangs are located at the rear of the mouth and stating that the boomslang is rear-fanged?)
 * There was no attempt made to "mar your character", only to evaluate realistically your ability to fulfill your responsibilities in this discussion. Even if all the contributions you have now were added to all the contributions of that anon address, they'd still fall short of the above-mentioned "voting age".  The purpose of an AfD discussion is to tap the judgement of experienced Wikipedians who understand both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia's policy and understand how they are applied; new editors, no matter how well-intentioned, very rarely have the needed understanding, and I'm afraid that your apparent ignorance of simple matters such as how easy it is to check the edit history of an article -- not to mention your idea that calling people "Captain Jellyfish", telling them to "kindly get stuffed!", accusing them of "degenerate behavior", and promising "a verbal spanking" is acceptable behavior in an AfD discussion -- shows that you do not have that experience. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry then, if I have misunderstood anything that was done here. As you have pointed out, I am new and I'm not familiar with how EVERYTHING works. I apologize for the hostility. Also the boomslang thing was an oversight, thanks for pointing it out, I went back and fixed it. I also deleted my comments that were in violation. It just seems like most of the people here have it in for me because I'm new. Also see my above comments. They do meet WK: Music guidelines.--TaeKwonTimmy 20:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Not on Amazon, not on Allmusic. No evidence of meeting WP:NMG, and editor comments indicate this is not (yet) a well-known band. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, "but anyone who knows what they're doing on Wikipedia knows that they can check who left what comment just by reading the history of the article. " I wasn't aware it was a standard practice. If I HAD know (I.e. had you signed it and explained it) I would never have said what I said.). Also I did know you can check edits and history, but I still wasn't able to check the edits because my computer kept refreshing automatically for some reason. I have since fixed this problem. Anyway, sorry. Also, what is the "voting age" of which you speak? I have made a number of contributions including a rather large one to seahorse and the addition of an article on Shaded Red. Anyway, sorry again. --TaeKwonTimmy 21:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

ps. I did create the article, and thus have a stake in it. --TaeKwonTimmy 02:42, 27 December 2005 (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.