Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle Of The Future Buddhas

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 05:07, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Battle Of The Future Buddhas
Here is another psychedelic trance project article created by user:Ld, this time from Sweden. Ld maintained earlier that this group is notable, but I recommend that its article be removed because it meets none of the Music notability criteria. It has 366 unique google hits 585 unique Lycos hits [google is fairly useless for hits with large numbers, as Bruce Springsteen gets 833 unique hits] 216.119.136.113, but as I said before, that is the approximate number of psychedelic trance junkies who log into blogs. The individuals behind the artistic project, Magnus Blath, Johan Rosen and David Tingsgard searched with the word "trance" get about 13 unique google hits a piece. The project released two albums on Boom! Records, a label which has released a total of 19 albums. It has been established fairly exhaustively {64.154.26.251 03:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC) see comment} to a reasonable degree that this is not an important independent record company as per the notability criterion dealing with record labels (see Votes for deletion/Fractal Glider). It is not mentioned on All Music Guide. 216.119.144.35 18:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Keep. Please see Votes for deletion/Fractal Glider, which was nominated by the same user for similar reasons. The general consensus on that vote right now is to keep. -Ld | talk 19:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The two cases are not comparable.  If there is a consensus to keep Fractal Glider it is only because you have finally provided evidence the project has been on some kind of international tour, which is one of the Music notability criteria.  And earlier votes to keep may have been based on misleading information provided by you, Ld, about the importance of the label. 216.119.136.134
 * Please show evidence of where I am providing misleading information. I have been on Wikipedia for over a year, and my contributions have never been accused of providing incorrect or misleading information.  You can review the contributions on my user page, if you wish.  You, on the other hand, are posting from an annonymous IP (and not even signing your posts), and putting up many of my contributions for VfD.  I recommend you create an account before doing any more VfD submissions. -Ld | talk 20:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The nature of the misleading information is covered rathered thoroughly at the Fractal Glider deletion entry. Why are you acting as if providing misleading information is necessarily some kind of bad act?  I don't know what your intentions were.  There is no need to recriminate by accusing me of "not signing my posts," when I forget to do so once.  I haven't put many of your contributions for VfD, I've put only three (one of which the consensus so far has been 7-1 to delete).  You, Ld, on the other hand, may have made about a hundred psychedelic trance stubs with no research into their notability, and then you definitely said "Please feel free to nominate any of them for VfD if necessary" here.  And now it's as if you're getting angry at other people for doing the job you should be doing yourself. 216.119.136.134 20:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact, I have abstained on that vote because in that case the band is in fact of dubious notability. By saying "if necessary" I was implying inconsistent with the guidelines.  I am not denying a few of my stubs may not meet the guidelines.  If you nominate those, I will either abstain or vote to delete/merge.  In all other cases I will argue strongly against deletion. -Ld | talk 20:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ld, on my side, I am not trying to delete all of the stubs, just those that don't come up as notable on the web searches. Since you admit there is a problem with some (ten?  twenty?  thirty?), I would prefer if you nominate the non-notable ones yourself.  In this particular case, you may wish to appeal to the guidelines or show some other kind of widespread notability.  I'm only going by educated guesses that they're not notable other than the guidelines, because of google hits and because what they put as their accomplishments on their own website is pretty thin. 216.119.143.43
 * I would say there is possibly a problem with perhaps 0-3 stubs. Even so, it depends on how you view the guidelines, i.e. do EPs count as releases?  What makes a label notable? I tried to compile a list of artists that in my mind are notable, however since I am very familiar with the subject I might have went further than I intended in a few cases. -Ld | talk 23:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You are making misleading remarks again, Ld, deliberate or not. The guideline clearly says "two albums" not "releases".  The guidelines clearly define that a label must be major or "important", it doesn't use the word notable, but it clearly defines the word "important" as I explained to you already in the Fractal Glider deletion section, "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable) (this is not to imply that the guidelines are the sole means of providing evidence of notability, but on the other hand I didn't see any mention of this group in the main "Trance" articles) 216.119.143.43 00:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No allmusic.com entry. More Boomrecordscruft. Gamaliel 23:27, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * allmusic.com is completely useless as a measure of non-US artists - David Gerard 17:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, just under the bar of notability, band vanity. Megan1967 23:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Wyss 02:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: What I believe I established in the Fractal Glider article was that Boom! Records had too small a roster of notable performers to be considered important.  Here are the facts:  The label has released a grand total of 19 albums, 8 of which are compilation albums, 11 of which are actual albums.  2 of them were released by a probably notable performer [according to deletion consensus], Fractal Glider itself, and the only other performer ever on the roster that is included in All Music Guide released 1 album with Boom!, Ubar Tmar.  Ubar Tmar may be notable, having released an album on a larger independent label afterwards, but he is no longer with the Boom! label.  Also, all of the other performers, including Battle of the Future Buddhas, have fewer google hits than Fractal Glider. 64.154.26.251 03:23, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as vanity. Radiant! 18:31, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets keep criteria. These nominations appear querulous - David Gerard 17:41, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * That springs from the fact that it seemed as if someone had put their record collection on the wiki without regard to quality, and then asked us to research and nominate the non-notables. See Lucy in Space with Diamonds with 60 Lycos hits.  I'm fairly satisfied, now, that that is not the case.  All Music Guide contains a great many foreign acts.  David, can you suggest a better measure if you don't find that source reliable? 216.119.136.113 22:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)