Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyrating bhtch

 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gyrating bhtch

 * Delete vanity. --Briangotts 18:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity, non-notable, advertisement. Could possibly be speedied for no content. --InShaneee 20:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable, band vanity, promo. Megan1967 07:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are entries in Wikipedia for U2. How is this band any different? Why does it matter that U2 is well-known and this band is not? Is part of Wikipedia's charter that only notable people, places and things should be allowed in? And if so, what criteria should therefore be used to determine what is "notable"? There are plenty of important people events that got swept under the rug by a lack of media coverage, or a lack of awareness, that were nonetheless important. Many artists labored in obscurity during their own time, only to be "discovered" long after their death. It seems to me that judging an entry based on how popular it is does a serious dis-service to this project as a whole.

However, the "vanity" charge is fully warranted. I will update the text of the submission to make it more objective.
 * unsigned coments from user:24.27.39.144, who created the Gyrating bhtch article.

Vanity charge not at all warranted! From the Wikipedia definitions: (entries) about start-up businesses or musicians are not vanity pages and are considered acceptable.
 * unsigned comment from user:68.77.141.109 19:51, 16 Apr 2005 -- this user's first edit.


 * Delete. If sockpuppets want to keep it, it's gotta go! P Ingerson 20:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"If sockpuppets want to keep it..." What does that even mean? The first draft of the entry was biased, I admit, but I have changed the text to make it more objective. It now seems to conform with Wikipedia's own entry standards, does it not? And if not, then why? Certainly, deletion is not recommended here because of reviewer bias, right? So what objective standards are being applied now to warrant deletion?
 * Delete. Unlike this band U2 meets the Wikimusic Project guidelines which specifies that an artist meet at least one of the criteria namely top 100 success in major or medium sized market, won awards, performed on a national tour, or recorded at least two albums with major label or reasonably well-known independent label. This band will be eligible too when it meets any of this criteria.Capitalistroadster 00:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is verifiable and may be of interest to more than a few people. From what I understand from the limited search that I made of this band on Google, their performances are more like the avant-garde "happenings" that were common in art communities of past decades.  These events were ephemeral.  Their documentation, whether only in the minds of the audience or as Christo has done in his tangible records for his projects, is the only proof that they happened at all.  It seems that a wiki-community is an appropriate place for such an art form to be documented. --Newdeal 16:40, 18 Apr 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.