Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorilla Operation


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash talk 22:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Gorilla Operation
Article is very nicely done, very clean, not too much braggadocio. But unfortunately, they're a "newly formed" band, "still in the process of recording their first album (as yet untitled)". DS 14:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC.  Friday (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Still a well thought out article with good ideas and information. 09:54, 1 October, 2005 Chillie
 * Note: Above comment actually added by User:61.68.53.30, whose only edits are concerning the article in question. The name signed above does not appear to have ever been used. DreamGuy 00:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Jwissick  (t)  (c)  23:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Gorilla Operation as well as Gorilla operation (so as not to leave a broken redirect) because of nonnotability/vanity/spam. DreamGuy 00:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: I am the 13yr old author of this article. I would like to say that I am in no way affiliated with the band in question. They have no idea this artile was writen, so the accusation of "vanity" is not true. Thankyou. !Please Keep This Article!
 * To the author: Please don't be offended in any way by the deletion nomination. This is not intended as a judgement on the band.  I'm sure they're quite good.  The problem is, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, so many of us have high expectations of what goes in the main "article space".  While many editors may be of the opinion that GO isn't "significant" enough to be included, there's actually an even bigger problem:  Nothing in the article is verifiable.  If you can show us that the music media is talking about this band, that would make them verifiable.  If they're not yet to the point where they're getting that kind of coverage, there's really no way for them to go in an encyclopedia.  WP does not allow what we call original research.  That means your own experiences are not considered appropriate for inclusion.  If you were to go review a show and interview the band for example, WP would not be an appropriate place to publish that work.  I hope you understand, nobody's trying to say that the band (or your article) is bad.  We're just saying WP isn't the right place for it.  Friday (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * From Author:thankyou for the feedback. Would it count as a varification if their music was list as "1# most downloaded" on a music download site. I mentioned this fact in the article. I belive this is enough to varify them as a music influence to some degree. Also, the research was done from the bands website (2nd redirect in article).This proves this it was not, how you say, "original research" as i was not involved with the original research.
 * Don't hold back on us, are they or aren't they #1 most downloaded on some notable site? I'm not sure if it would answer WP:MUSIC requests, but being coquettish about it definitely doesn't help.  Check out the WP:MUSIC criteria and list any that GO matches, it will simplify matters.  Until then:


 * Delete per nomination. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 16:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What's Takeing So Long?!?. - It's come to my attention that this has been going on for 6 days... When will you actually come to a decision and delete my damn article.... Though it would be nice if you kept it.... thankyou, the author.
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.