Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Credo (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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Credo (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability issue. Firstly this band's only results in google are self-created pages such as myspace, secondly this article appears to be self-written in the form of an advertisement by a person affiliated with this band Heggyhomolit (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt to prevent recreation. This article has been deleted several times in the recent past, only to be recreated by the same user. The article reads like an advertisement, and the only thing about them which comes close to them having notability is stating that an album is "critically acclaimed." However, there is no verification of this, and I highly doubt there is the possibility for it. --23 Benson (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no refs Someone65 (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. And I can find no critical acclaim for the album that is supposedly critically acclaimed. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I accept the above criticism and have updated The Credo (Band) page to include references to independent album reviews and record label sites to make it comparable to Wikipedia entries for similar progressive rock bands. --FrankenGene (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC) — FrankenGene (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete as per original arguement. See WP:BAND Criteria point 1; references fail to meet requirements. Sorry lads but WP is not a source for music promotion. Heggyhomolit (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems to be a locally referenced, if small, band. They've got a lot of output and have some good linked sources. Klar Distribution (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not an arguement. The article does not meet WP guidelines, see WP:BAND. Heggyhomolit (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've reviewed the added sourcing and remain unconvinced that this meets notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - There are many bands that have entries in the progressive rock category in Wikipedia that are no more well known or more poorly referenced eg. Ark (UK Band), Arena (Band), DeeExpus, Frost*, and that's only getting to 'F'. This entry is a work in progress and it will improve further in the coming few months as I track down more information.  It is not intended as an advert, and will happily change any wording found to be objectionable. -- --FrankenGene (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC) - — FrankenGene (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Generally, the state of other articles is not germane to this discussion. You are welcome and encouraged to improve the referencing in those articles or nominate them for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, generally maybe, but specifically I must respectfully disagree.  I have accepted that the original article was very poor and warranted deletion.  The updated article is now as good or better than many other entries under the progressive rock band category.  Furthermore, this band is at least as well known as many others in the category and deserves to be listed amongst its peers.  I argue that comparison with other similar articles is valid in these circumstances so as to demonstrate fair and equitable treatment.  Otherwise, how are we to tell the difference between reasonable deletions and malicious ones, especially when notability and reference criteria have an element of subjectivity to them.  Lastly, to the commenter who sought to diminish my arguments by appending my editing statistics to the end of my previous post, poor show.  I have been following progressive rock for more than thirty years and know a little about the subject, that is what should matter, and not the frequency of my editing. -- --FrankenGene (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You really should be assuming good fath, with regard to other editors. This AfD was not created as an act of malicious intent, rather the act of patrolling a page, and making an informed decision on the matter. To quote WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, "plenty of articles exist that probably should not." You really shouldn't be taking into account the content of other articles in your reasoning for keeping or deleting this article. This AfD is about Credo, not any other article. --23 Benson (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The point is that it does not meet one point of criteria on WP:BAND. These guidelines are there to ensure that the servers are not flooded with articles merely written to promote something or someone and will ulimately have no encyclopaedic purpose. Please read the following which is criterion 1 from WP:BAND:

''1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. The only references provided are of a trivial nature. The other 11 criteria are not met in this case. Heggyhomolit (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *poke* 02:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet wp:gng or wp:band.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 00:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Complete lack of significant coverage in reliable sources and no other indication of meeting the criteria at WP:BAND.--Michig (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BAND. For a group appearently active for nearly two decades there's surprisingly little of... well, anything. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:10, 31 January 2011 (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.