Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cureheads


 * 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. - Philippe 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cureheads

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

This article was prodded and prod2'd several weeks ago and the prods (and cleanup tags) were deleted by an IP promising to improve the article. That was over two weeks ago and nothing has changed. The article's main issues are questionable notability and a total lack of references and consequent lack of verifiability. The only claim to notability I can see that would possibly meet WP:MUSIC guidelines is that one of the members of the Cureheads was once a member of Nosferatu. Nosferatu were somewhat successful, according to their article, selling a combined 100,000 albums, but that is not nearly enough notability to be transitive through one of its members. To me, Nosferatu seems marginally notable; Cureheads, far less so. Further damning is the lack of any references at all. I checked Google to see what I could find and there were a number of ghits but they are MySpace, YouTube, Yahoo groups, blogs and so forth--nothing that would meet WP:RS. More telling is the Google news search which yields a big ol' goose-egg. Without references to back up even its flimsy claims of notability, I say delete per WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:MUSIC. OlenWhitaker  • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 15:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has been changed slightly, but I still don't see it meeting inclusion guidelines. Two references have been added, but they both point to other Wikipedia articles which does not meet WP:RS guidelines for sources.  Even if they did meet WP:RS, the lack of any news coverage (at least that I could find) makes it very unlikely that this article could ever establish a sufficient degree of notability.  OlenWhitaker   • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 21:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:MUSIC due to lack of coverage in reliable third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. `'Míkka>t 16:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

KEEP! This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries. Here: The lead singer was subject to a channel 5 documentry The Worlds worst boss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.219.164 (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - also for promotional reasons, with heavy conflict of interest. Investigation into the edit history of this article, and viewing of certain talk page posts pertaining to this and a recently AfDed article Amerikafka (AfD) (a music album related to one of the band members), reveals that both articles were constructed with a promotional train of thought by those directly involved with the band to which this article refers. I stood by as a prod was removed from this article recently, a promise being made at the time that the article would be brought "up to scratch", re: policies and guidelines, if the article were left alone. No such improvements have been made. Ref (chew) (do) 19:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 23:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm afraid the article currently does not include anything of the kind. It is no good you telling us what the sources might be in an AfD - they need to go in the article. YouTube is not a reliable source, by the way - what is it supposed to prove? They exist, so yes it proves that. But to be notable requires a bit more than mere existence. Ref (chew) (do) 20:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The original video clip is from world selling brand of TV show called "World's Worst" This brand is translated into several different languages and IS a documentary. The brand is owned by Quentin Wilson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.219.164 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And what does that have to do with anything? How is that proving notability? We want websites of decent repute telling us (in words, not video, preferably) that Cureheads are the latest craze, are mentioned as widely as possible as being special, and we want those websites to illustrate why. Then we can include those sources in Wikipedia, and hey presto! the article links to sources which prove the notability of the subject of the article. Your comments certainly do not act as a reliable source - it needs to go in the article. And video is not the natural medium for Wikipedia - it is primarily read, not watched like a TV show. Ref (chew) (do) 20:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I leave your world to you angry man. maybe you try to edit Frendh site sometime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.219.164 (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above linked show isn't about the Cureheads; it just has band members in it. That is an important distinction.  As I have pointed out on other AfDs, I have appeared on the front page of a major newspaper and been interviewed on a major news broadcast, but I am not notable; I just happened to be a witness to something that was.  In other words, simply appearing in a thing is different from it being about you.  The band is in this, it's not about them.  OlenWhitaker   • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but you are very much wrong. The documentary was directly about The Cureheads and the way that they have chosen to be managed. It even showed two of the mebers in a reality TV situation on a survival course. There were lots and many talks about The Cureheads. Anyway, if it was you that edited the page all niceness now, please accpt my thanks. I will know what I am supposed to do do now on other edtings. Though I really dont want to meet some of these peoples who get so angry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.219.164 (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it was me who edited the article, to get it into some kind of shape which is acceptable to Wikipedia. It does not mean that it won't possibly be deleted, but at least it is more of an article than it was. You unfortunately mistake neutral discussion for anger. No-one is angry here - if they are, they don't stay very long. Ref (chew) (do) 22:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have seen an episode of the show Worlds Worst Boss once before; it is emphatically not a documentary. It's pop TV. It's entertainment; it's not documentary in nature and doesn't claim to be. Besides, anyone can be on the show including total unknowns. If you're an apprentice plumber and you think your boss is a jerk, you can nominate them and they may appear on the show. The appearance of the Cureheads on this show does not, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute notability regardless of how one chooses to define the band appearing on a show versus a show being about the band. Such an appearance simply doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. At least, that's how I see it and experience tells me most other editors will probably agree. By the way, I don't think anyone here is angry about any of this. I, at least, am not, so I hope I'm not coming across as hostile. Despite our difference of opinion, I have nothing but Wikilove for you so please, don't take any of this personally. Cheers! OlenWhitaker   • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 22:51, 11 April 2008 (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.