Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get 2 Know Us


 * 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   '''speedily deleted G11, blatant advertising of non-notable content, sockpuppetry, blatant conflict of interest, failing WP:Notability (bands). It's easy to get Internet listings but there is no evidence of wide, independent coverage here'''. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Get 2 Know Us

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

Non notable EP/album by non-notable band, no significant coverage, nowhere near meeting WP:MUSIC, spam, spam, spam. Red Hugh (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I apologize for my misunderstanding of WP:MUSIC. Are you saying that coverage on AMG (All Music Guide), Amazon and other mainstream media outlets is not significant enough?? DedraHughes (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I am unfamiliar with this subject, but the nom appears to be a Single Purpose Account and sockpuppet of another user that knows how to insert AFD templates, with his/her only edits relating to the destruction of this article. The edit summaries left on Get 2 Know Us, "spam spam spam spam", and spam, spam, spam are inappropriate. Please do not let a SPA sockpuppet game this site's procedures.
 * Comment Laughable, but on the subject of SPA sockpuppets you might want to see how much spamming has been done by this band. Here and here and here and more if you bother to look. Sockpuppets? Apart from the current one, try these on for size:, , , , , , , , , and so on. Please do not let SPA sockpuppets whose only intention is self-promoting spamming game this site's procedures. Next time try pointing your accusatory finger in the right direction! Red Hugh (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not appreciate the condescending tone from one hiding behind a sockpuppet. Both sides appear to be at fault, though I will not vote either way in favor of a blatant single purpose account attacking other apparent single purpose accounts. Your AFD would be stronger had you used your regular account and tried to be civil. SashaNein (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Says the editor that makes sockpuppet accusations without evidence! Haven't you embarassed yourself enough for one day? Red Hugh (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Red Hugh", I have contacted WikiMedia regarding this matter. You have presented content that the band and its label directly instructed to be removed from Wikipedia. In early May 2008 all blocks preventing articles on "Profound Intent" were removed per WikiMedia. Those user accounts and content you have presented here, cannot be used in this case. This article is about a notable "album" from the group and not the notable "group". I think you are making a "mockery" of both "Wikipedia" and the group. Your actions displayed here are clearly childish. All info presented in my article on this album is backed by sources (presented in the Ref list). DedraHughes (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * COI COI COI COI COI COI COI COI. Red Hugh (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - "RED HUGH" PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MAKING ANY FURTHER MENTIONING OF MY ACCOUNT IN THIS DISCUSSION. I DO NOT SPAM. PLUS YOU HAVE SOME TYPE OF ISSUE TO HAVE EVEN TOOK THE TIME TO GENERATE THAT LIST! YOU'RE THE SPAMMER! GOOD DAY! A Creator of Articles 19:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please don't comment with all capitalized characters. That is considered as yelling which is frowned here at Wikipedia. -- RyRy5  ( talk ) 19:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thirty seconds is all it took, after seeing what happened when I tried to click on the Profound Intent redlink. Red Hugh (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. All of the yelling, accusations about SPAs and sockpuppets, the threats, etc., aside, this clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC.  Please also see these previous discussions Articles for deletion/Profound Intent, Articles for deletion/Profound Intent (2nd nomination), and check the deletion logs as well.  Cheers! ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  19:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the debates, but I see that they were all 'courtesy blanked' by JzG one full year after closure. There is information about this AFD that is being left out. I don't care to find the answers since it's just degraded to a SPA (I thought you were retired, that's all I'll say) versus SPA (members of the band) matchup. SashaNein (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear the "retired editor" has moved house, and does not yet have internet service at his new residence. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  19:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Everyone here is hiding behind computers. I'm sure the group is busy making records. However those like myself choose to write articles about them and their works.  FranklinRose (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct, User:One Night In Hackney has retired and to the best of my knowledge, does not even have internet access currently. Also, time to look at this, the Profound Intent folks have been rather... insistent about getting their musical spam onto WP, when they have failed multiple AfD's. SirFozzie (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Clearly a malicious Afd by an SPA with an axe to grind. ukexpat (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Says the editor that issues level 4 vandalism warnings for adding back an afd template! What part of WP:MUSIC does this album meet then? Since the band isn't notable? Red Hugh (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Section break; post here if your not interested in drama

 * Strongest possible delete Profound intent are doing everything possible to be mentioned in wikipedia. It does not meet notability guidelines. Red Hugh made a good nomination, though maybe saying "spam spam spam" was a bit hostile.--- Phoenix -  wiki  20:46, 7 June 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.