Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crown Tranceiver


 * 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 all. --Core desat  04:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Crown Tranceiver

 * — (View AfD)

The band does not meet WP:MUSIC and information about it is unverifiable. About three Google hits, all myspace. Prod removed with the notice Removed Deletion request: unique accomplishments of this band demonstrate the need for an article Wafulz 04:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also nominating:
 * Avante Garden
 * Progsperimental EP
 * Post-Experimental Progressive --Wafulz 02:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4360/independentyj3.jpg
 * Magazine Articles Hey I've got some magazine clips and stuff about these guys and what they've done if that will help the debate? 13 December 2006
 * Depends what magazine and what the subject is. --Wafulz 19:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This falls more into the realm of 15 minutes of fame than an encyclopedia topic. If they have other substantial third party articles at different periods of time (to demonstrate that they're not just a blip on the radar), then having an article would be more likely. --Wafulz 01:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a bunch of other stuff, I don't think I understand what you need exactly but I'll scan stuff tomorrow
 * Delete per nom. --Muchness 04:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I'm really not seeing any notable accomplishments, but the article states that the band "was questioned and released with a nominal amount of tabloid publicity". If this can be backed up with one or more sources, then keep.  Though based on the lack of Google hits, I'm guessing that this won't be happening.  —ShadowHalo 05:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MER-C 05:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Glorified garage band].  SkierRMH, 08:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Without further verifyable sources, the article does not meet WP:N or MP:MUSIC. ccscott 16:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete I belive that even though a band is not commercially successful that it is still important to share their story. CT has never had their own website because none of the members desired to have one. they keep an extremely low profile and just recently launched a myspace page. 13 December 2006
 * Wikipedia is not a substitute myspace page.--Dmz5 17:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying this? 13 December 2006
 * The implication of the comment above is that even though the band is not notable (and therefore does not meet explicit wikipedia guidelines), it is important to "share their story somewhere" because they don't have a website. In other words, the user wants to use the wikipedia entry as a website or "substitute myspace page" rather than as an objective, third-party-generated article about something that is notable.  Many editors mistakenly believe that wikipedia is an appropriate venue to promote new acts or generate attention/buzz about something that is not yet notable.  This is not the case.  Also, please note that it is considered good form to end each post with four tildas (this thing ~) to add a signature, even if you are unregistered.--Dmz5 00:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He never said this once, I think he meant because of CT's strange performance style it's important to have these exploits as a resource. There are far more trivial things on Wikipedia.  If the band were very concerned about internet publicity I suspect they would have got to work on that years ago.  Fans such as myself don't expect any further publicity from a wikipedia article and frankly just think the weird shit they do should be accounted for for documentation's sake at least, which again, doesn't hurt anything.  The idea of commercial success equaling notability falls short to categorize things that could be considered art or conceptual exploration.  Please note that this band does not sell records, does not have any label affiliation and has only produced profit for the sake of charity: the WP:MUSIC guidelines certainly seem applicable to the majority of music acts but here I feel that they fail to define importance or noteriety. 68.58.153.227 08:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as the argument that there are more trivial things, you may want to read Pokémon test. Commercial success is not required for a band to have a page on Wikipedia.  If they go on a national tour, release two albums on a notable indie label, or are the most prominent representative of a notable style or city, they pass WP:MUSIC.  But the article fails to assert any of this.  —ShadowHalo 00:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Could they be categorized elsewhere, and not under music, possibly? 68.58.153.227 01:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per SkierRMH. Daniel Case 16:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per above. Lack of sources and lack of accomplishments.
 * Delete: Per above, non-notable. The editor has also linkspammed a bunch of vaguely related pages. (edit: and just plain vandalised others in the last few minutes) --Kaini 02:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Same as above..
 * 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.