Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blessed by a broken heart


 * 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. --Core desat  03:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Blessed by a broken heart


Article on a band; no assertion of notability. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 07:58Z 
 * Delete, WP:BAND. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 08:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as both sources cited are to the band's own Myspace and Purevolume pages and thus fail WP:BAND; no notability or reviews, no information on US Sales, and have not won any major awards. --  Razor ICE    talk    C    @   11:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep They're a nottible band, they've been published in Metal Hammer in the UK. They've released two albums as of this year. Just because i don't know the sales in the US doesn't mean the band isn't nottible.Scubster 20:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note Above user is page creator.  Eliminator JR  Talk  19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep They're a very nottible band and I have seen them play good band.Somethinghadtodie 16:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They've just been signed by Century Media Records, which seems fairly notable in the Christian music publishing regime, but most of the coverage that I can find consists of a reprinted press release. Which, incidentally, is what most of this article is - it appears to be copy-and-pastes of an All Music Guide bit and the Century Media press release. Delete and rewrite from scratch when they've got more independent coverage. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable enough for WP:BAND yet. May be so in future but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A1octopus 22:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, they've got some released albums and a google search turns up quite a few potential sources. This article needs a serious rewrite, though, right now it's borerline speedy for advertising--UsaSatsui 12:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note Above user is new account that oddly spells "Notable" the same way as the page creator (see above). Film at 11 tonight is "One of my socks is missing".  Eliminator JR   Talk  19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a sock, and I was able to find these easily:, , , . Whether they're WP:RS is up for someone else to argue, but they're more than the average no-name garage band.  --UsaSatsui 23:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is one of those where a band is heading towards notability but isn't quite there yet. As you said above, the article needs a rewrite too - I'd be quite happy to be convinced by that.  Eliminator JR   Talk  11:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment so basically what you're saying is if a band doesn't have a .com, .org, .net...ect site they're not a notable band. so, if a band doesn't have a website behond a myspace and purevolume that automatically makes them not notable?? THAT IS BULLSHIT.Scubster 05:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sourced - myspace and purevolume doesn't cut it I'm afraid.  Eliminator JR  Talk  19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No, it doesn't mean that, but if you read WP:BAND you'll see that Wikipedia needs secondary, not primary sources for notability. Now, UsaSatsui has pointed you towards some in his above posting, so why not update your article with some of those and rewrite it so it reads less like advertising, and perhaps some of the Delete votes will change to Keep.  Eliminator JR  Talk  11:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sometimes, I don't know why I try. It's apparent that some people think that Wikipeida is just some webhost that puts up any old crap people care to type in, and that you can establish that something is  "nottible" by just repeating some drivel about how it's "bullshit" and that "just because we haven't heard of it" and how everyone's out to get you because your two-bit band IS SO worthy, and they don't even bother to read the policies that would prove notability and get the article kept. Instead, they shout, and shout, and shout, and think that will guilt people into giving in or something.  I went out of my way to help provide the information that could get this article kept, and the result?  Whine, whine, shout, shout, bullshit.  Doesn't exactly encourage people to keep being friendly.  Listen, Scubster (for the record, sign your posts), there's rules around here.  Play by the rules, or at least pretend you want to, and I'll bend over backwards to help you...I'm sure 90% of Wikipedia would.  Continue to be a jerk, and I know I'm not going to bother anymore.  --UsaSatsui 18:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * well the thing is everyone around here thinks they're right about every dumb little trivial thing. I have nothing to do with this band and I think people should be more informed about them.....Scubster 05:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good faith? :( --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 10:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete with the option to be reposted when meets the requirements. The album on independent Blood & Ink Records, the article in Metalhammer and the signing by Century Media Records indicate that they're on their way, but not quite Wikipedia-ready. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 10:49, 4 March 2007 (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.