Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brokencyde


 * 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   keep, closing per WP:SNOW. The result is pretty obvious; even bands we do not really like may still (unfortunately) meet inclusion criteria. Shereth 14:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Brokencyde

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

Again, non-notable. This article has been repeatedly salted because they are non-notable. And no, charting at #86 does not notability make. I know that's the baseline at WP:MUSIC, but consider: to reach 86th, all you have to do is push a few-thousand copies. It's technically speedyable for G4, but, again, it has to go through AFD because of a DRV that lasted about three hours. Sceptre (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see no notability. Timneu22 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not, I'm going to give it a Keep, the charting helps establish some notability, and sourcing also helps(and the Warren Ellis comment makes me laugh, not that that matters in terms of notability). Not exactly the best known band out there, but I think they generally scrape by. Barely. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination should be speedy deleted at this point. Salt liberally.  A brine, perhaps. JBsupreme (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep That's #86 out of 200, and charting at #200 is sufficient to pass WP:MUSIC. (to chart at #86, you have to sell something like 6,000 copies in a single week.) My sense is that the nominator, having repeatedly nominated this for deletion, is so convinced of their eternal non-notability that new information contradicting that is simply being disregarded as irrelevant. Chubbles (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * weak keep Personally, I consider the bar at WP:MUSIC a good deal too low, but it is a well established guideline. If we want to raise it, we should do it with a RfC, not by picking out individual articles. DGG (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Major clean up required, specifically things like "...created a band to pass time while having problems with their girlfriends." Apart from that I see no problems really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trix312 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It passes the bar for WP:Music. This isn't the place to change that bar.  Fuzbaby (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this article is a horrible display of everything wrong with the concept of notability. How can this band be notable when a full professor at a European university might not be?  Nevertheless, sadly, the WP:GNG is met, so I have to hold my nose and !vote Keep.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's also a shame, but I am of the "keep the professor" school, rather than the "delete the band" school. Not sure what it would take for Wikipedia to catch up with academia, but I wish it would. Chubbles (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - It passes WP:MUSIC, so we keep. If you have an issue with the notability criteria, go make an RFC about it.  Grandmartin11 (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sufficiently notable for an article. They have received sufficient coverage and are well-enough known to be notable, unlike some full professors I used to work with, btw.--Michig (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, charting at #86 does notability make. If you don't like the criteria at WP:MUSIC, go attempt to change it. Tan   &#124;   39  20:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – not to mention that the album charted, there are also some coverage from what I think are reliable sources and . MuZemike 20:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have been a delete !voter in three of the previous Afds, but this time it is different. This sorry excuse for a band has released it's debut album, had it chart at #86 (a pretty good achievement, considering the quality on offer here), and has become the subject of independent coverage from reliable sources. That's enough to pass WP:MUSIC for me. sparkl!sm hey! 20:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Tanthalas39. Whether you agree charting #86 confers notability or not, it does satisfy the WP:MUSIC criteria.  You should be making your argument there.-Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't usually comment on music stuff but Sparklism sums up the argument. This is an encyclopedia and it is conceivable that someone wants information about this band and it has more than met our baseline requirements and should be included.  (I do understand that just because something meets the minimum requirements doesn't mean it MUST be included.) Drawn Some (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you do attempt a RfC about the music criteria, please drop me the link. I think it is way too low. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This would be a funny event to start changing the rules, because in order to change WP:MUSIC such that this band is excluded, you'd have to set the bar so high that it'd never survive an RfC. Chubbles (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep with Comment They have been and are currently on several notable music tours/festivals. And the recent chart success is more than enough. My comment is that it seems lately that many articles aren't given a fair chance. Someone creates one on a band that could pass but isn't even given enough time to edit the article, add sources, etc. before someone who just hasn't heard of the band puts it up for deletion and then has 6 other people who haven't heard of the band feel the same way and it's pulled. I also feel a lot of the reason this keeps getting nominated is because of how much hatred the band gets when people are supposed to remain unbiased. I even noticed people giving their opinions on quality in here. DX927 (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur, far too many people nominate music articles without knowing much at all about music. If I were to go and nominate the article of a scientific theory I've never heard of, I'd be shot down, and I wouldn't do so because I just don't know the topic. If a user isn't sure, they should be using the template indicating that an article may not meet our notability criteria. Musicians are probably one of the most popular subjects for which people use Wikipedia, and getting rid of articles on published and notable musicians seems counter-productive to me, especially given the way that the music world is changing and charting means very little anymore. For example, this 2007 discussion had a collection of editors suggesting to merge the biography of a charting band to the article of one of their songs, because they didn't know anything about the topic at hand. It's a little embarrassing, and I suspect Wikipedia looks a little red-faced when users see we're considering a band they just saw on TV or at a large festival as not being notable. Esteffect (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A final point is, although this isn't the place, I think the bar for WP:MUSIC is right in some ways (charting musicians should always be notable), and completely wrong in others. We often delete the articles of bands whom are up-and-coming, which is precisely the time that a lot of users are going to want to find out more about them. I think this should be reflected in WP:MUSIC that, once a band is receiving coverage from a large music website or media source (e.g. BBC News, NME) that they are then eliglible for inclusion. I'm sure someone whom only believes in having articles on Britney Spears and U2 will shoot that suggestion down, however. Esteffect (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd really like to see 2 things clarified. Which charts (how many different Billboard charts alone are there right now? I also think there should be a point on the charts to call it notable. 200 out of 200 is still "charting", but it is sure different from 2 out of 200. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's clear in the article that the chart concerned in the Billboard 200, which is the only Billboard album chart that really matters as it's based on sales - it's the US album chart.--Michig (talk) 06:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is starting to get a bit off topic, but if a band is receiving significant coverage from the sources that you mentioned, they would already be notable according to WP:MUSIC as it is now.--Michig (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The band are reasonably well-known, even if far from the mainstream. Also WP:MUSIC supports its existence. Esteffect (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, horrible band, but I believe they meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, when you consider the charting and the writeup from The Guardian. --Stormie (talk) 03:51, 2 July 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.