Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konflict

non-notable drum and bass outfit. Probably vanity. AMG does have an entry, but it's only to state that they performed a song composed by someone else, no other details. More notable does seem to be a computer game by the same name. Dunc_Harris|&#9786; 17:58, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The computer game eats up all the hits ("Kaptain Konflict"). I'll vote delete in this form.  If the original author comes back with an expanded form that establishes notability, or if it develops by the end of VfD, then I could change my vote.  Delete. Geogre 20:37, 21 Aug 2004
 * Delete: After reading this article, and I still have no clue what Konflict actually is. I'm with Geogre on his last sentance. -Frazzydee 02:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Non-notable. That is unless it is expanded, but even then I question changing my vote. -bquanta 22:52, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Because I know nothing about Hungarian polka, I do not presume to declare certain articles in that field "non notable" and "probably vanity". I leave them to people who do have knowledge in the field.  I recommend you follow the same principle.  It is clearly evident that none of you have the slightest clue about drum and bass, because if you did you would realise that Konflict are one of the most notable artists from the genre.  Looking on AMG is no substitute for actual knowledge of your own, as AMG has very shallow coverage of minority genres such as dnb at the best of times.  The reference there to Konflict performing a song by Richard Rogers is simply a mistake.  Instead, you would be better placed looking at a specialist discography site such as (preferably) Rolldabeats - a link which, by the way, I am fairly sure I added to the Konflict article - or even the more generalised Discogs.  Doing so would at least alert you to their range of releases for Renegade Hardware, one of the oldest and biggest record labels in the dnb scene, even if it would not make you aware that tracks such as "Messiah" are widely regardless amongst afficionados as amongst the top ten anthems ever produced.  I'm fairly sure the article also pointed this latter fact out, by the way, so I find it hard to believe after reading the article you did not even know what Konflict "is" [sic].  Perhaps the last edits by 65.23.221.217 had vandalised it, but I am sure that as I left it, it explained quite clearly their extremely notable position in the history of techstep.  And I cannot imagine you would delete an article which appeared vandalised without first looking back a few edits.  This is deeply disappointing.  I have recently been involved in a systematic effort to improve the lackluster state of articles about dnb (and electronic music generally) on Wikipedia, but this seriously makes me question the value of such a task.  It seems completely pointless to spend any time researching and documenting artists like Calyx or Klute if people with no awareness of the genre whatsoever are going to (completely erroneously) declare artists of even greater fame "non notable".  What next, deleting Optical as a "vanity" article?  If this is idiocy is indicative of a trend, my days as a contributor here are definitely numbered.  I thought the point of Wikipedia is that people edited articles on topics about which they are remotely informed.  Stevekeiretsu 00:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)