Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's pouring on our heads


 * 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 speedy delete CSD A7. Kimchi.sg 07:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's pouring on our heads

 * — (View AfD)

Deletion nomination Prod contested by anon IP. Hoax. Claim that this band had a no.1 album and millions in CD sales appears to be false - No hits in the Billboard.com database for their "big break" album. Actually, they don't appear to be in the database at all. Only ~40 googlehits. Band website is amateur and hosted on free webhost. Fails WP:MUSIC Bwithh 01:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since my nomination, a single purpose account has adjusted the article's claims to be more believable - now it is no longer claimed that the band had No.1 hits in the US and Canada which went went multiplatinum, selling 6 million CDs worldwide. Now it is merely claimed that the band debuted in the US and Canada charts and went only platinum, selling just 2 million CDs worldwide. Nice catch, guys Bwithh 02:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * More backpedalling Bwithh 02:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Above 2 comments moved from article talk page by Bwithh 02:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Obvious hoax. Only three ghits for "Assumption Academy Sucks", one of which is WP. Caknuck 02:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom Savant45 02:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - certainly not notable yet, guys, but best wishes. "Yohan Records", said to be a "major label", does not even have website. CyberAnth 02:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Moving the following 2 comments from article talk page and registering them as keep Bwithh 02:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep i think that this is true do to the fact that this is on there website and myspace, and myspace friends reconize that there famous and talk how they are famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfhsdfyhtraq (talk • contribs) — Gfhsdfyhtraq (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep this is band is great and many poeple like it and is probably going to be recreated over and over again so i think you guys should just keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhgljsdnofh (talk • contribs)  — Fhgljsdnofh (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: The statement alone that it will be repeatedly recreated is enough to cause the article to be salted, and even if you do recreate it repeatedly upon deletion, it will be subject to speedy deletion as a repost. --Dennisthe2 04:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They may be the best band since the Beetles in your view but MySpace is not a source that can used in Wikipedia articles Verifiability. You need to come up with some press reports. CyberAnth 02:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Recommend salting this article if it is deleted. Bwithh 02:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh for pete's sake There's another keep comment from a single purpose account on this afd page's talk page - apparently made after I moved the keep comments from the article talk page and left a big link to this afd discussion. If people can't follow clear instructions twice in a row... take a look at the this afd's talk page if necessary, I'm not going to do more moving. Bwithh 02:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Myspace notability and talking as if peopel are famous and otherwise recognizing them isn't really all that reliable. --Dennisthe2 02:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Myspace notability" is an oxymoron. MER-C 03:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely. =) --Dennisthe2 04:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Very, very obvious delete per everyone who already expressed their deletion rationales above. -- Kicking222 03:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, in my opinion should be speedied as per WP:SNOW. Malla nox  03:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete before this stupid myspacery gets any worse. MER-C 03:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete db-band, and block for pretty much announcing his intent to troll Wikipedia. Danny Lilithborne 03:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. I don't know why it wasn't tagged that way in the first place, instead of going to AfD. =Axlq 03:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because originally the article claimed it was a multi-platinum selling band with no.1 hits in North America and 9million CDs sold worldwide. Even though these claims are false, likely hoax content is not covered by the criteria for speedy deletion. Having even a dubious claim to encyclopedic notability is sufficient to fail speedy deletion tagging criteria. I originally prodded this article and it was contested. So here we are at AfD. Bwithh 03:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In the case of outright false claims, the tag would have sufficed rather than going to AfD. Ah, well, too late now. =Axlq 06:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's not right. CSD G1 specifically excludes hoax claims from db-nonsense tagging:"This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes." Also see WP:NONSENSE and WP:HOAX. Bwithh 06:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not a candidate for speedy but it sure is for deletion. TSO1D 04:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's probably okay as a db-band speedy now, as the article editors have withdrawn their no.1 hit/worldwide success claims Bwithh 04:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, notability assertion is obviously false. Recommend editor who states it will be "recreated over and over" have a read through WP:POINT. Seraphimblade 04:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, salt, and also salt "It's Pouring on our Heads", "It's Pouring On Our Heads", etc. Also permanently block user who clearly has not read WP:POINT. -- Charlene 04:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Nice try but NN -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 04:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 04:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt since commenters-for-keeping above threaten that it is likely that the article will be created "over and over again." Tarinth 05:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, obvious WP:BALLS, utterly violates WP:V. Salting sounds reasonable. -- Kinu t /c  06:55, 27 December 2006 (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.