Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I, fanblades


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Denelson83 07:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I, fanblades
Fails to meet WP:NMG. Delete. -- The Anome 21:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * So this band doesn't deserve an article because the people here haven't heard of it before? Meanwhile, they are pioneering sounds and methods that few others have tried before, let alone dove into with such passion.  I motion to reconsider.  Chaosinterface 22:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC) Note: Chaosinterface is the article's author.


 * Strong Delete because whenever a sockpuppet likes it, it must be bad. Karmafist 22:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete "people here haven't heard of it before?". exactly.non-notable. Niz 22:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above, nice of Chaosinterface to argue for the delete ;-) dr.alf 00:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. When Rolling Stone says you're "pioneering sounds and methods that few others have tried before," you'll have my vote. Durova 00:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Their web site provides no evidence that they meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. --Metropolitan90 01:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:Music. HGB 12:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * So exactly how many of us are from the town in which this is occurring? Also, rather than going to a capitalist-infested establishment (ie: Rolling Stone) for advice on whether something is different or new, why not sample the goods?  There is material linked right in the article. Chaosinterface 22:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether we personally like their music or not, or whether their music is different and new or old and the same. We have specific guidelines for whether a musical artist should have an article about them in Wikipedia. See WP:MUSIC (the same article cited by The Anome and HGB). --Metropolitan90 00:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I understand that, I had looked over it, and I'm certainly not trying to imply that anyone specific has to like it or dislike it. But the final sumation of the criteria that I'm seeing seems to be that what matters is whether or not the artist is notable.  The fact of the matter is, this will change things.  This will become known.  If the issue arising is simply that it isn't known yet, or it's not felt to be verifiable, I understand.  It can wait. Chaosinterface 15:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the point, yes. Wikipedia has to make a point of reflecting that which is already notable because otherwise we'd be deluged (hell, we still are) with the submissions of people trying to use Wikipedia to become notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:Music. *drew 02:23, 17 November 2005 (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.