Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entropy five

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Stormie 09:19, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Entropy five
A google search for this artisté and his first album reveals three hits. Suspect band vanity. Meelar (talk) 22:32, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, one-man band vanity.  -- Scott  ei&#960; + 1 = 0  00:17, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 00:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, band vanity. Bart133 03:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This response amuses me to no end. The truth of the matter is that all information is recorded for the sake of human vanity.  Why else are logs like this kept?  To gague the validity of information based on how many people have made reference to it is ludicrous.  If the information is not recorded somewhere, how else are people going to hear about it?  This article was written in as much of a unbiased fashion as the author was capable of.  The fact that there aren't a million Google hits for this artist does not make the information contained herein any less truthful or real.  If this is to be an information resource, isn't it a bit contradictory to remove information from it, based on the fact that not everyone has heard of it?  How is an article on this artist any less notable than an article on John Denver, Marilyn Manson, or Liberace (all of whom have articles here)?  Is it because he has not inspired hundreds or thousands?  He has inspired one or two... is that not enough?  Is it becuase he has not made millions of dollars at what he does?  If so, is money a measure of truth?  You call yourselves an information resource, yet you are turning away information based on some ephemeral "validity."  How is this artist any less valid than, say, Jessica Simpson?
 * comment by anon user:68.6.69.192
 * I don't think I can summarize my opinion any better than the verbose poster just before me. An artist's popularity (or in this case, lack of it) doesn't make the information any less valuable or valid to those who may have an interest in learning more about him/her.  If this is supposed to be an information resource, I don't see a reason to remove information from the page as long as it's verifiable.
 * comment by anon user:4.8.215.145
 * Consider my coffee mug. I can verify the existence of the mug, and if so pushed I could verify its size, colour, and structure. Should I therefore write an article about this particular coffee mug? Well, I can if I want to on a server that I own, but I can't just go foisting it off on other people and then act uppity when they complain that my article is boring drivel (which an article about my particular coffee mug would be). This is a ridiculous example, of course, but merely to illustrate that there should be a line drawn somewhere. Wikipedia is here to reflect note, not to create it. In other words, no, inspiring one or two is not enough. Average Earthman 10:04, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You're always welcome to write an article about your coffee mug, and then we can go through this whole VfD process again. Fortunately, you understand that your coffee mug probably isn't destined for mass appeal, or really a subject matter that has the potential for mass appeal. While the artist may not -have- said mass appeal, s/he is a subject that possibly could become a more widespread point of curiosity given time. Additionally, after reading back through the policy on deleting articles, and the types of things that are permissible, I'm even more convinced this should be a Keeper.  I don't think it's too over-the-top or promotional in nature to justify the entry on Wikipedia.
 * anon comment by user:4.8.215.145
 * Fame has nothing to do with relevance. Policy of Wikipedia even dictates that this not be argued in discussions about deletion. A page should not be cast away as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Wikipedia, and therefore, lack of fame should be completely ignored in deletion debates.  Furthermore, it should be noted that an article is not a "vanity" page simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional.  This page doesn't fall under "overtly promotional", it is informational. It therefore doesn't fall under any criteria for deletion. A relevant argument in favor of deletion has yet to be made.
 * Comment by anon user:218.138.64.103
 * There is no Wikipedia policy that says fame can't be used in a discussion like this one. The fact that there is no consensus regarding the degree of recognition does mean that fame is irrelevant or that it can't be used as a criterion for deletion. Tuf-Kat 04:33, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Influence, not fame. You can be obscure, but very important (I've argued in favour of articles for full professors who aren't exactly famous outside of their fields). But someone with next to no influence whatsoever isn't deserving of an article anymore than my coffee mug is. Furthermore, extreme obscurity will tend to result in a very reduced number contributing to the article, making verification reliant on the point of view of the author. As for your vanity argument - if a game, book or movie ever writes its own article, I'll be surprised. Besides, you are specifically instructed not to write about yourself on the editing page when you create a new article. 12:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The history shows this was made by user:Average Earthman who apparently added one too many ~ when he signed the comment.
 * Oops, my mistake. Average Earthman 13:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, This seems like a pretty clear case of something that doesn't belong. As for the argument that "if the information isn't recorded somewhere, how else will people hear about it", the information IS recorded somewhere.  The author/band has other places where this information is available.  Of course there are lines drawn about what is valid for inclusion.  This is an online encyclopedia.  It's not a dictionary, it's not a calendar, it's not a lyric repository, it's not a recipie database.  Dannimal
 * This is the user's only edit to Wikipedia.
 * The question begs to be asked: What, exactly, is influential? This artist is part of a small group that has, nigh single-handedly, inspired a resurgance in the central california industrial music scene.  Before Entropy Five's emergence there was next to no attention paid to this genre of music in the area between San Francisco and Los Angeles.  Now, there are monthly (if not more) live industrial shows in this region, as well as several new clubs opening their doors.  The influence may not be on a world-wide level. But, to quote Wikipedia policy: "A page should not be cast away as 'vanity' simply because the subject is not famous."  Likewise, Wikipedia policy states that "it's preferable that the initial author not be someone affiliated with the project," but does not expressly forbid it.  At this point, I see no logical, moral, or semantic reason that this article should be deleted.  The only arguments posted for deletion have been ephemeral, at best. Keep. z0mb1 (talk) (Sorry.  Forgot to post my sig line last time.)
 * User's only contributions to Wikipedia so far have been to this discussion thread. The edit history of this page, however, suggests that he/she may have a contribution history as anon user:63.171.166.140.
 * I made a few factual edits to the article. z0mb1 (talk)
 * This anonymous poster is making some strong and valid points. Marginal vote of keep and allow for organic growth.  GRider\talk 18:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * No evidence of notability is given in the article. Entropy Five does not meet the WikiProject:Music guidelines for inclusion.  If what z0mbl claims is true, added to the article and verifiable, the band would meet those guidelines.  Since the article doesn't bother to mention why anyone should care about the band, however, it should be deleted. Tuf-Kat 04:33, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it. Google hits shouldn't define the influence of artwork. We're talking about a musical act that influences the counterculture and nightlife in more than one city and obviously has a substantial fan base.
 * comment by anon user:208.48.40.250
 * This is not obvious at all. The article doesn't mention it. Tuf-Kat 05:07, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Going strictly by the rules of Wikipedia, the article should not be deleted. To whit: 1) music or business-related pages are not considered 'vanity' pages simply because the musician or business is not well-known, 2) authorship of an article by the subject of said article is not grounds for a ruling of 'vanity', 3) obscurity of subject is not grounds for judgement on the 'worth' of the article. That being said, the initial 'delete' request was made due to the assumption the article was a vanity piece - which, under the rules of Wikipedia, is provably false. With regards to the 'usefulness' of the article, it's true it's not going to appeal to a large number of people. But as counterpoint to that, how is that different than an article on the Realians of Xenosaga, or an article on the home planet of the Xel'Naga, Zerus? To be fair, these are highly specialized interests as well.
 * comment by anon user:128.111.111.62
 * This article goes well beyond being a specialized interest. No evidence is given that anyone aside from Dominick Balsamo give a whit about Entropy 5.  There is no evidence given that anyone ever purchased a single recording by Entropy 5, or that anyone ever chose to see Entropy 5 perform.  There is no reason to suspect that anyone cares at all.  The links you provided are to  games released by major companies; Entropy 5 is or was recorded by some record label of no apparent note (the author of this article didn't even feel the label was important enough for an article, for example).  Tuf-Kat 05:07, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, band vanity. --fvw *  19:05, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
 * Keep The obscurity of an artist does not in any way pertain to the validity of information about them.  There are any number of obscure artists here who are just as deserving of the articles on them, just as there are a good number of entries of obscure topics in general.  The article is informative and objective and is no way vanity. rantmo
 * This is the user's only edit to Wikipedia.
 * Keep I find it absurd that smply because someone hasn't caved into the mainstream conformity of MTV or the Lillith Fair it is being argued that they shouldn't be recorded for history. Entropy 5 is a cultural phenomenon riding the left coast between Santa Barbara and San Francisco. If you speak with any involved industrial musician from the this region, they can site Entropy 5 as a band with gritty raw talent and the promise of gut wrenching struggle towards the difficult success of the industrial "scene".  History is what we make of it and Entropy 5 makes it every show, every release, and every moment it creates. Why wouldn't history be listed in a forum such as this? Information is the right and entitlement to the masses.user:annamonster/annamonster
 * According to the edit history, this comment was actually made by anon user:205.188.116.195. There is no User:annamonster either with or without the slash.
 * This comment is absurd and offensive. I spend a lot of time editing Wikipedia's articles on music, and I can assure you we have plenty that are not at all related to MTV or Lillith Fair.  Do not use strawmen to defend this article.  From It's A Beautiful Day to Happy End, we do document obscure but notable bands.  No evidence of even the slightest bit of notability is given in Entropy 5.  There is only a vague claim of critical praise, and a quote from a fantasy illustrator whose opinion on music is of no particular interest. Tuf-Kat 05:07, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is vanity.  This is not a noteworthy band.  No internet presence to speak of aside from a CafePress store (which may or may not actually be related to the band).  No real-life presence to speak of, as far as I've ever seen or heard.  No presence for "Discontent Entertainment," either, which probably means self-publishing.  In short, just another local band.  If they should become notable, then we can recreate the article. Shimeru 21:51, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP So happens I like this guy's music. not that I have any tremendous clout in the world on what's 'popular' or not; but I don't see why this should be deleted. I'd rather read an article by someone trying to promote their new music than scads of articles on predigested MTV approved schlock.
 * anon comment by User:205.188.116.195 - the same IP as "annamonster" above
 * Comment: I like the guy's music, too.  Doesn't mean he's worthy of being included in an encyclopedia.  "It's information" is not a valid argument.  What I had for breakfast this morning is also information.  It's not encyclopedic.  "All information is recorded for the sake of human vanity?"  Sophistry.  Not all information is equal in value.  Encyclopedias exist to document those people, things, and events which have had an impact on history, the arts, or the sciences.  Many musicians have done so.  Not all musicians have done so.  Entropy Five has not done so, to the best of my knowledge and the limits of my research (and yes, I have lived in the area in question).  If they are, in fact, influential, then point us to something that shows that influence.  Newspaper or magazine articles?  Records of extensive live performances, along the lines of a tour schedule?  Other bands citing him as an influence?  Anything?  If he's truly influential, then it shouldn't be too difficult to find such secondary sources. Shimeru 22:43, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: To all the new or anonymous posters in this discussion thread, you should be aware that your votes are likely to be steeply discounted when this discussion is finally decided.  The Votes for Deletion process has had significant problems with sockpuppets in the past who attempted to bias the voting.  Arguments and facts supporting your position are welcome but they are more likely to be given credibility if you log in and sign your posts using four tildes .  Rossami (talk) 23:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as band vanity supported by unusually expressive talking hosiery. - Lucky 6.9 00:24, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * sockpuppets? no.  supporters?  yes.  the artist put out a request for support on its weblog and site.  fans responded.  the "relevance" of the artist is now enforced by a show of external interest (check the IP addresses.  they are different). z0mb1
 * A different IP adress does not mean a different person. Sometimes IPs are "dynamic" and change every time the connection is restarted. Sometimes people use proxy servers to change their IPs. And sometimes people just use multiple computers. In any case, I don't think you're sockpuppets. However, users who vote on VfD whos only other edits are to the page being VfD'd (if there are any other edits at all) tend to be received with the same credibility as sockpuppets. As for the "fan base", there are 13 people reading the E5 blog. Last month there was a "new religion" that got VfD'd, and they had over 300 members. They tried the same stunt (attempting to flood the VfD page with outside users), which effectively caused the few editors who supported them to vote delete.  -- Scott  ei&#960; + 1 = 0  05:09, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The entire article is lifted straight from the musician's LiveJournal blog.  Entropy Five's New Year's Eve gig was in somebody's living room.  First album was released by a label that dropped it in 2003; the material has not been rereleased. Second album remains speculative at this point.  Check back in a few years, but right now Entropy Five just doesn't seem to clear the notability bar. --TenOfAllTrades 02:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 1)The article was posted in the blog after it was posted here. 2)The initial distributor was taken over by a larger company and shut down.  All artists were let go.  These things happen in the independant music world.  3) The material is scheduled to be re-released this year (see the article). 4) The follow up record is due out in mid-2005 and is currently in post-production.  5)What's wrong with a band playing an intimate set for fans only, on a holiday?
 * comment by anon user:68.6.69.192
 * Nothing is 'wrong' with playing for small groups or a local community. On the other hand, the fact that his distributor was unsuccessful enough that it was taken over and its artists dropped doesn't help support a claim to notability.  That this happens a lot in the independent music world is moot–a lot of independent artists aren't sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. From their own website, they seem to perform quite infrequently. If this year's scheduled album release(s) generate some buzz, then the question can be revisted.  Right now, a quick Googling reveals nearly no one talking about Entropy Five (with the exception of material that they've posted themselves.)  --TenOfAllTrades 04:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: For the record, this text was posted on the Entropy Five LiveJournal at 23:10, Jan 25 2005 (UTC):
 * ''There is currently a debate waging at Wikipedia to allow Entropy Five's article to remain on the site. Certain individuals are claiming that this article falls under the category of "band vanity" and is not a valid cultural phenomena simply because E5 is not a world-renowned act that has made millions of dollars. Ignore an artistic endeavor simply because the whole world doesn't know about it? I think not! Besides... per Wikipedia's policy, the existence of this article violates no rules.


 * ''Please assist in preventing popularity from outruling fact, defending the right of information to exist, and kicking the MTV-spoon-fed generation in the teeth! Go here and vote! Just click the link, click the "edit this page" link near the top of the page, and add your two-cents to the text string. Be sure to highlight your KEEP vote in bold text and to put an asterisk (*) before the first letter in your article. When posting your vote, the text string should look like this: * Keep (insert defense here). You don't have to be a member of the site to vote. Please do not delete any votes or vote multiple times (people tend to get pissy when you do that, and it is tracked), and lets keep this intelligent. I don't want to start a flame war, here... But I do want to make a point. Information has the right to exist, despite its popularity. Your vote will count.


 * Thanks for your continued support!
 * -- Scott ei&#960; + 1 = 0  04:51, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. The poster who says that all information is, in a sense, vanity has a point. He should therefore go and compile a list of every single band that has ever played, whether it is famous or notable or not. When has has done that he can start adding articles to Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth 05:11, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete. One guy has a "band"- and by this I mean he makes music himself, submits himself to Wiki, and tries to say that he's amazingly influential in the scene.  Come back when more than just your friends have heard of you.
 * Unsigned vote by User:209.179.141.34. Only edit is to this page.
 * You guys are the one who has been calling this artist a "band." No claims of band membership were made in the article.  Likewise, there are no rules barring self-submission.  The artist never claimed to be amazingly influential, either.  Those claims were made by other users in this thread. z0mb1
 * Keep. While I've used Wikipedia for a while, this made me take a closer look at how the site runs, and it's sad to see such an asinine elitist popularity game.  The point has been made that band popularity is not a criteria for delisting.  Keep the posting.  It's something real.  A real band, with legitimate effort in it, from someone's ideas of music.  Entropy 5 may not be big, but it has plainly been enjoyed and listened to outside of someone's garage.  I'd like to think even smaller things are worthy of remembering for posterity, and Wikipedia has always seemed a good place for that.
 * comment by anon user:68.111.230.51
 * Keep. I am a fairly new user to Wiki and this is my first comment on a VfD post.  I read the rules for deletion, and it seems to me that this page doesn't hit on any of the "Delete" options.  Keeping with other articles I have seen here on bands or singers, and removing the "fame" factor from the equation, the page isn't really a Vanity post at all.  The music is good, I have heard a few of the bands songs in the past, and I don't see this article as innappropriate.  My own opinion may be ignored over those of more experienced users, but I believe my opinion is valid. sacrosanct
 * Users only edits are to this page and user page.
 * There are no rules about why an article may be voted for deletion. We may vote to delete an article for any reason, provided it is in good faith. See Deletion policy. Tuf-Kat 05:07, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep By the rules cited for deletions, it is unnecessary to even be having this poll. Aside from that, however, this is an artist of note in the Santa Barbara music/club scene.  He's brought a resurgence of the popularity of the industrial music genre, and has sparked both interest and attendance in clubs he's played in.  The artist does have a significant fan base in the SB area, and has been influential (in a city-wide sense) for over a year; over the course of which, I might add, his musical presence has transcended city borders and popped up in conversations I've had with other gearheads along the coast of California.  Just because his music hasn't hit the big time yet doesn't mean that it's not of note.  I vote strongly to leave the article as is.Spooktress 19:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Users only edit is to this page
 * If the article reflected your claims with verifiable information, then Entropy 5's notability would be not be debatable and there would be a lot more keep votes. In addition, the only rule regarding votes for deletion are that they be made by logged-in users with an edit history at Wikipedia, and that they be made in good faith.  This is not a poll.  Tuf-Kat 05:07, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all vanity pages, including this one. Especially when the vain band in question recruits people to subvert the VfD process. Jayjg  (TALK)]] 20:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Supporters have a right to be informed and given a chance to act. No threats were made, nor rewards offered for inclusion in this thread.  Supporters were informed of the situation and came here to vote on their own volition.  The argument here is in regard to the validity of the artist, and the fact that others show interest verifies validity. z0mb1
 * A band with 6 or 7 supporters? Yeah, that's notable. Jayjg (talk)  22:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * One supporter proves interest. Fame, media presence, and profitability do not prove validity.  The perpetuation of the idea that they do just supports shallow, capitalistic ideals (not that capitalism is all bad... but when it is your only motivation, there is a problem) that degrade and negate the idea of simple concepts like artistic integrity.  is the artist doing something at least slightly original?  are they doing it for the love of the craft?  is anyone paying attention?  are those people being encouraged to think and possibly even take action because of this artist and his/her product?  if so, then you have an artist of note who has done their job. z0mb1
 * That's all great, but this is about whether or not the band is notable enough to deserve an encyclopedia article. All evidence so far indicates it is not. Jayjg (talk)  23:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia, by definiton, is "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject" (Merriam-Webster). This is a repository for unbiased, factual information.  It is not the position for a fact record to make moral decision on a subject save that the information is fact and not opinion.  Therefore the overall validity of a subject is not to be judged and the information should be allowed to exist on its own merit.  There were no opinions expressed in this article, nor falsehood perpetrated... Therefore it qualifies as encyclopedic text.  That's the beauty of the information age: that facts, no matter how big or small, can be recorded for posterity and future review. This is not a popularity contest or a celebrity review.  It is a place for facts to be recorded and stored.z0mb1
 * There's plenty of information on music and bands on Wikipedia, so I think we're covered on that particular "branch of knowledge". Wikipedia is not intended as a repository of all known facts, but rather, as an encyclopedia, containing articles on all significant topics. Jayjg (talk) 00:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * As long as there are subjects to keep people informed about, there will never be a case of a branch of knowledge being "covered." By that rationale, it would be fair to say that information and news on natural disasters, wars, diseases, and human suffering have been "covered." In Wikipedia's article on itself, it says nothing about it being a judge of information's significance. All that matters is that the information is unbiased, factual, and not just a dictionary definition. z0mb1
 * Wikipedia doesn't cover what I ate for lunch today either. This band is equally notable. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * There is significantly more to it than that. Verifiability, for example.  See What Wikipedia is not.  Various other pages, some of which have already been linked too. Tuf-Kat 05:07, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable. Markaci 00:56, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
 * KEEP David 01:07, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete:Keep votes solely due to bad-faith recruiting drive. Don't feed the trolls. --Arcadian 05:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mikkalai 07:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete bandity article. [Personal attack removed by RSpeer.] Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 13:45, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even just "Entropy five" only gets 25 displayed hits, two of which are VfD. Niteowlneils 00:29, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I really like how the IP's above are saying such things as "...per Wikipedia's policy, the existence of this article violates no rules" and that Wikipedia allows biographical content. Not to be harsh, but... WRONG.  Delete. humblefool 03:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Where is the proof? That's all I'm asking for. comment by anon user:68.6.69.192
 * Delete vanity. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 06:51, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable, vanity --JPotter 09:13, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Deletenon notable, vanity, Fledgeling 21:50, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Quote "Certain individuals are claiming that this article falls under the category of "band vanity" and is not a valid cultural phenomena simply because E5 is not a world-renowned act that has made millions of dollars." from the bands website is an outrageous slur against wikipedia. You don't have to have done be world-renowned or have made millions of dollars to be noteworthy enough for an article. Rather than throwing accusations, why not demonstrate WHY Entropy Five deserves it's own page. How many copies of the first album did you sell? How many people do you attract to your performances? What record company interest do you have? How widely are you known? If I went up to an average person in your city/town and said 'Have you heard of Entropy Five?', what sort of answer would I get? Make a good faith effort to show you aren't just using wikipedia to advertise, and you actually are of sufficient interest to people GENERALLY to warrant inclusion, and you might just be surprised. Keep bashing wikipedia users for having the temerity to question your inclusion, and see how far you get Djbrianuk 03:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Read over this text string again and tell me that's not what this argument is about. Just because one shares an unpleaseant truth, it does not mean that they are "bashing" anyone.comment by anon user:68.6.69.192
 * Agreed. I find this incredibly insulting.  I have written articles on such MTV fodder as the music of Niger, while many other wonderful Wikipedians have written about huge pop stars like Supply Belcher and Attila the Hun (calypsonian).  If Entropy 5 has any notability whatsoever, or is of interest to anyone besides the individual in question, show some actual evidence.  We're talking about California, here, not an Internet-poor third-world-country, so there must be some evidence that somebody cares on the web.  Or hell, cite a book, if you can.  Cite a movie or a TV show or radio program, or pretty much anything, but don't just make vague claims about importance and expect everyone to buy it. Tuf-Kat 05:07, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * The proof of truth within the "slur," as you put it, is in your comment and the previous one: The artist is upset by the fact that validity is being judged by media acceptance over quality of content. Through your comments you have proven his observation to be true.  The fact that the artist exists and that his work is prolific can be found at his site.  What more do you need?  Is mass acceptance really the only source for notability.  In my opinion, if you answer "yes" to that, this situation is truly sad indeed.  And as far as referring to this article as "troll bait" goes, I ask you this: Do supporters not have a right to be informed and be heard?  I've read nothing on this site to indicate that it was designed to be an exclusive club.  Free and open resource means free and open resource.  If you don't like it, maybe you should be lobbying for the people who run this site to change some rules. comment by anon user:68.6.69.192
 * If you believe mass acceptance is the only route to notability, you clearly know very little about Wikipedia. Tuf-Kat 16:59, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, "supporters" do not have a right "to be informed and be heard" on Wikipedia. You appear to have mistaken Wikipedia for some sort of vanity site or blog; it is, in fact, an Encyclopedia.  "Supporters" can "be informed and be heard" on whatever website Entropy five or its supporters wish to set up on their own dime. Jayjg (talk)  17:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, vanity, troll bait, etc. Gamaliel 04:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Article removed by artist. Entropy5 15:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Oh.  You've already done it.  --Marcus22 20:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this have been deleted after five days since there's a majority to delete? GoCardinal 23:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)