Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind Strata


 * 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 02:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Mind Strata
Delete new art collective from the Bay Area that hasn't yet achieved notability. Please see discussion on the article's talk page where there are hints that notability may be provided later. If sources can be found to show notability, I'll recommend this is kept. Gwernol 12:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, A7. Tagged. No offense to anyone, but I don't see where this article asserts notability. ? PJM 12:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The authors of the article seem to think they can come up with evidence of notability. If so, good luck to them &mdash; we don't delete articles on technicalities, merely for the sheer thrill of deleting them.  Please remember the purpose of A7 and the other CSD, rather than just the wording. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If we can see verifiable evidence that these guys are important as the comments on the talkpage hint, then the article will be worth keeping. Otherwise, no. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't seem notable to me. Seems more of a vanity page than anything else. Also, the authors providing notability themselves would most likely fall under original research.--Auger Martel 16:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment its more that if the authors can point to independent press articles about their group then they have shown notability. As long as the articles aren't written by them, they can provide the reference to the articles and its not vanity or OR. Gwernol 16:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Point taken in regards to the independent press articles. I would be more than welcome to examine the evidence of notability they present and make a decision from there. At this point though, since nothing has been presented, I'm still standing by delete.--Auger Martel 17:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have looked through the links which they have provided on their talk page and I am still not convinced. The scope of the references just doesn't seem wide enough to warrant the article and it is still not notable enough as a while for me to change to a keep vote. So still delete for me. The references themselves should really be implemented in the article somehow, rather than the talk page.--Auger Martel 07:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete nn, with no evidence to the contrary. --Wisd e n17 20:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The author of the article has added some notability links to the article's talk page. I am personally not convinced the group is yet notable based on this evidence so won't be changing my recommendation. However as the author points out the group does appear to be close to notability and I would urge other editors here to examine the evidence and make up their own minds. Thanks, Gwernol 21:38, 16 June 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.