Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Faith


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Cradle of Faith

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

Hoax entry for a non-notable band. The article asserts that the band "won a Sydney Film Festival Dendy Award for Australian short film in 2008"; however, this statement cannot be verified. The band has a Myspace page, and that appears to be their only existence on the Internet. A Google News Archive search returns no related results. I am also nominating the band's album:

Cunard (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we count Facebook groups as legitimate sources? Nick\\
 * As a general rule, no. Astronaut (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Contestion Of Vandalism
Cradle of Faith are a legitimate band, notable for their international touring presence and 2003 hit single Metallic Blues. They are identified in the two referenced text in great detail (unfortunately neither of these texts have wikipedia pages, hence the amazon links). This page was identified as a stub as more information was needed on them and thus this page is incomplete. However this does not constitute vandalism it just constitutes an incomplete wikipedia page. If this page was identified for deletion as the information was not notable that may be understandable and further evidence could be supplied to prove their existence however the tagging of this page as vandalism has no backing or proof and is highly incorrect. The pseudonyms of artist in the band may appear to be falsified but they are true. The band has humorist aspects in both their songs and stage shows and the names they operate under are examples of this. Given more time this would have been established on the page and thus an explanation would have been given. You will notice I was not the creator of this page. This in itself shows that the page and band have some form of validity. If there was a real issue with this page i wonder why it wasn't tagged previously as vandalism. In Fact today it was tagged by an unnotable non-moderator user after an innocent attempt to add more accurate information to the page was partaken in by myself by adding a citation to where one of their more notable works came from. This obviously does not constitute vandalism and as such cannot be categorized for deletion under these terms. I also question why it was not categorized for deletion after some obvious vandalism did take place on the page 12:38, 25 April 2009 by 121.44.160.135 ? Thank you for your time, I hope this matter of injustice can be sorted out in a swift and easy manor for all parties involved--Guywithoutaname (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No Google hits for group or song. Photograph and links appear spurious, too. JNW (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate to disappoint <---This is off the An Evening With... album. If you need more just ask. There's a stack on that site. Yang used to update that site with things he'd been listening to (with permission) and had some band stuff up there. He distributed the address to friends and fans (I understand how this could be seen as a breach of copyright, however this is just to prove a point and it was uploaded by the artist anyway)--Guywithoutaname (talk) 07:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * quote:  Given more time this would have been established on the page and thus an explanation would have been given. :Unquote. The article has been up for four months now, how much more time did you want? Less than 2 good verifiable secondary references means no note, and I can find none, in fact I could find NO reference to the band at all, hence part of the reason I suspected it to be a hoax. As for the groups they have opened for I feel I should point out that notability is not inherited. Trevor Marron (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think you've made a mistake; the band certainly isn't a hoax (I went to a concert a few years back and watched the doco at SFF), but I'm not sure if it would meet notability guidelines completely. I think where you're falling up with the google hits is that 'Cradle of Faith' is an anglicisation; it's a Mexican band. You probably won't get many hits for it on google because of this particular title's similarity to Cradle of Filth, and I'm not entirely sure, but I assume it's a parody of it. Someone removed the references for reasons I don't quite understand, but I originally created the page because I read a passage on it in Rock and Roll by Lynn Goldsmith. It was about it being an example of the renewed world interest in World music in the early 2000s. I'm not sure what the other reference is about. Their music is apparently very popular in Mexico. Sorry, I'm not sure if I stuffed up somehow, but I think you're being a bit quick to declare it a hoax. :) Tarquin (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * When I nominated the band for speedy as a hoax I did not do it quickly, I referenced the band, nothing verifiable on the web, all the usual search engines returned zilch. So I did the same with the band members names, nothing. Then the records the have released, guess what? Nothing. Then there is the 'early picture' of the band, a group of mainly elderly Mexicans holding cornets and bass, that is then said to play "Alternative metal, Nu metal, Christian Rock, Hard rock". You now also point out that "'Cradle of Faith' is an anglicisation; it's a Mexican band" So why is there not any reference in the article to point out their Mexican name? So to summarise, there is a dodgy looking photo, nothing verifiable and no other evidence than hearsay that the band exists. So if you can offer some verifiable proof that it does exist (a few reliable secondary references) and I will happily remove the CSD tag. But if you can't then perhaps it can go to AfD, but I feel that would be just delaying the inevitable, without verifiable references it does not stand a snowball's chance in hell. Trevor Marron (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now found, after much trawling on the internet, this: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/1015357.html if you go to the bottom post on the thread there is a mention of 'Metallic Blues' but it is just that and is no way near a reliable secondary source to prove notability or otherwise. Incidently the reference to 'Metallic Blues' in the article links to the article of the movie with the same name. I try to patrol at least 100 new pages a day, and I really should not have to reference an article to justify it's existance, if the references are not there then it fails. Trevor Marron (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've taken this article to AfD because I believe that the band exists (see the Myspace page), but the assertions in the article are all false. The assertions are enough to make the article pass A7 but not outrageous enough to be deleted under db-vandalism. If the consensus is to speedy delete this article, I would have no objections. Cunard (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete and salt Band doesn't seem to exist and if it does it isn't notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't it a bit hasty to claim the band doesn't exist and extreme to request SALTing the article? The band is not a hoax and I understand if ultimately I have to do some more research and recreate the page with more accurate material but strong delete and salt??? A bit drastic don't you think?--Guywithoutaname (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete It's blatant enough for me. Gigs (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - As per all my comments on the article's talk page, even if I was convinced the band exists there is nothing to suggest it is worthy enough for it's own article. Trevor Marron (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nom. Whether hoax or non-notable, this is a candidate for WP:SNOW. Or feel free to use the rationale I created, WP:LOAP. JNW (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I've seen them live. They are a very notable band within Mexico itself. You can't use the fact that there are very few google news articles on them; the Mexican media is notorious for under-reporting Christian bands of Mexico due to the Institutional Revolutionary Party having a secular control order on the media. The cultural bias of the English language media means that it's not surprising that 'Cradle of Faith' (the anglicisation of the band's name) does not show up too much. Look, I've tried to do this as well as I could with the information I have; I don't speak much Spanish so I'm sorry if I can't make the article as prolific as would be most appropriate.--Guywithoutaname (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have tried looking for reliable sources but unfortunately I couldn't find any. However the article does not fit any of the speedy deletion criteria. It is not "a blatant hoax". Axl  ¤  [Talk]  20:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Hoax, given the claims made throughout the article: They achieved international radio airplay with their breakout single Metallic Blues; There is no evidence that a group with this name gained international airplay, nor are there even any Google hits for a song by that title. Mexican Christian Rock band is something of a giveaway, too, as is the photo. So, perhaps a garage band by this name exists, but the content is fantasy. The article on the band's album was speedy deleted as a blatant hoax. JNW (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * According to this website, Cradle of Faith played at The Commodore Ballroom in Vancouver on February 2nd. This could be a misspelling of "Cradle of Filth" and in any case, the website doesn't constitute a reliable source. However it does provide circumstantial evidence for the existence of the band, especially as Wikipedia's article describes a Canadian tour. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  23:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good research, but I think you're right about the misspelling; I entered 'Cradle of Faith', along with 'Vancouver', and got a lot of hits for the 'Filth' variation at the Commodore that evening . When we have to dig that hard to verify an entity's existence, that's a pretty strong signal...but no harm trying. JNW (talk) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article in question (the album one) was deleted as a blatant hoax BY YOU!!!! without due time for rebuttal. This is not a valid point to make about the band's non-existence seeing as you are the one bending the information. Isn't this a violation of wikipolicy? It is destroying evidence of realism for personal gain (creating new false and condemning evidence) and in real life it's totally illegal. False evidence like this would be thrown out of a courtroom as it's violation of the truth. And there's no contesting it's a real album anyway, check Yang Martinez's ftp if you don't believe me --Guywithoutaname (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not delete the article; only an administrator can do that. JNW (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tha album's article was speedy deleted by Nihonjoe. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  06:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Off The Recommendation Of JNW Before Due Process Had Been Served

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.84.203 (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I found the album's page whilst patrolling the backlog of new pages, it was that that led me to the bands article, when I considered the band to be a hoax (incorrectly, as it would seem they do exist even if they are not of note) I also considered the album to also be a hoax in support of the band's article. So it was me that tagged the album for G3 deletion, not anyone else. However, if the band goes, then the album will too, so please let the process finish then if the band stays then so can the album. But I can not see it being worth replacing the albums article as there is no secondary sources for that either so I can't see it making the WP:NOTE guidelines. Trevor Marron (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. BTW, how many albums on wikipedia do have secondary sources (apart from reviews)?--Guywithoutaname (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reviews would at least prove existance. And I would think quite a few albums could have what would be regarded as reliable secondary sources, such as this one which appears on a few of Madonnas albums' pages: http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001015119 it is not a review, but would be a reliable secondary source. Trevor Marron (talk) 08:33, 19 June 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.