Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calamity (band)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Calamity (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is about a band that has not released an album. The article is loaded with sources that have little to do with coverage of the band and its success (as no albums have been released). A recent PROD was removed. Prod was "Band has some members with a notable history, but hasn't yet released any albums. Wikipedia can't be a crystal ball, as we don't know if this band will have any success." This is grounds for this AfD proposal... in short, it's an article about a band who has released no music. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 16:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. This is basically just a vanity page used to promote a band that not only has yet to release any albums, but yet to even be signed. The discussion on the talk page proves this, and it even goes so far as to suggest off-wiki canvassing. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete it got deleted under A7 once, and seems to have barely survived it this time. Not notable.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 20:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'll also point out that it's too soon for a Wikipedia article on this band, and WP is not a forum for promotion via social networking. The band can promote themselves elsewhere until they're encyclopedic enough to appear in an encyclopedia. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 16:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As the person who placed the PROD, I disagree with the nominator as to the need for AfD. PROD is intended for articles whose deletion is not controversial, and this is a very clear case of crystal ball. AfD is reserved for articles that have a reasonable chance of being kept. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But you can't prod twice, so AfD is the next logical step. Who doesn't do that? Erpert (let's talk about it) 09:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that there was no reason to change the PROD to an AfD. Don't matter now, tho. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  07:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Doesn't appear to be notable. If they achieve notability later, a new article could be created at that point. (I typed a long rant about PROD-to-AfD but it was stating the obvious) bobrayner (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2010 (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.