Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P.T.'s Revenge


 * 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

P.T.'s Revenge
I fail to see any assertion of notability here, and with no such assertion backed up by a reliable source, this fails the notability criteria of WP:MUSIC. Also, the article is entirely unsourced, and may be vanity. Delete under verifiability and notability guidelines. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support deletion as nominator. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, pure vanity and spam. As BradPatrick told us, "fire at will". Daniel.Bryant 05:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - yet another nn band. (What Brad Patrick said applies to corporate vanity, now covered by A7 and G11). MER-C 06:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The only source I can find mentioning their albums is this article. That doesn't speak well for notability or verifiability. GassyGuy 07:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Touring schedule and members of notable projects put this in adherence with WP:MUSIC, or didn't you read the article? "Fire at will?" So embarassing. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 21:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't a side project, ergo, members of notable projects doesn't really apply. However, my main concern is that there's not, like, you know, a source for this information. Anywhere. Oh, wait, never mind. They have a myspace page. And we totally use those as sources. Don't we? I would be more inclined to keep this article if somebody could find any documentation at all of their having done what it claims they did. But don't let WP:V get in the way of being snide and attempting to discredit the community as a whole as inferiors. GassyGuy 02:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I find it ironic that he finds me embarrasing, yet four of PT's recent AfD closes have ended up at DRV, and 3 overturned. That is what I consider embarrasing. Daniel.Bryant 03:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't find the whole community inferior or embarrassing, just those of you who know nothing about music, yet insist on nominating bands for AfD. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 17:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you might want to create a punk rock wiki and take your elitism with you. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate the sentiment, you've still yet to demonstrate to those of us who know nothing and think this should be deleted where this particular entry meets WP:V. It's one thing to claim that an act meets WP:MUSIC. I could write an article about myself and make sufficient (false) claims to that easily. It's another entirely to prove them. GassyGuy 20:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So you are assuming bad faith of the editors of this article? Here are some links for you: This magazine interview proves the band has notable members, as does this webzine. A simple Google search for the band names pulls up many old concert dates which proves they played beyond their hometown (not that only touring bands meet WP:MUSIC). I think the AfDing of all these band articles is part of some sort of disruptive agenda. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 23:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "I think the AfDing of all these band articles is part of some sort of disruptive agenda." That's illogical; it's a unanimous delete besides you. The only one assuming bad faith here is you. You like throwing these acronyms at people as a way of assuming bad faith, but you clearly don't even know what WP:POINT means. If we didn't want this article deleted it would be disruptive. Dmcdevit·t 23:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The article meets WP:MUSIC. Period. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 23:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * With a grand total of zero sources, that is objectively impossible. Dmcdevit·t 23:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See External Links section and Talk Page of article. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 23:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what you call sources? Neither of these websites even indicates that "P.T.'s Revenge" exists. Dmcdevit·t 00:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not looking at them very closely then. It's sad when, even faced with sources, stubborn editors still insist on a Delete. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 00:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, my mistake. "Pt" threw me off, because I just searched for the words in my browser and that's not how the article calls them. In any case, this doesn't really establish anything. There is an important distinction between sources and external links. Nowhere does it confirm ay of the article's claims. Dmcdevit·t 05:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Unindenting With all due respect, those links confirm that a band called PT's Revenge exists. I don't argue that. I also don't think the editors of this article created it in bad faith. The only issue I'm bringing up is verifiability, and I don't mean verifying that "there is a band called PT's Revenge," because I've yet to claim there isn't. What I can't find are sources that indicate that PT's Revenge has done the notable things claimed of them. I did read your sources, and both of them simply refer to it as "Kevin's old band." That's not enough. GassyGuy 04:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But it IS enough. I know that the band is notable, but I can't prove that to YOU without some internet link. So, I have to fall back upon the WP:MUSIC criteria of this being the project of a notable musician. The links I provide do that. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 17:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You could offer me a citation from a print reference or some such if one exists. I actually prefer book references to Internet ones when they're available. But, yes, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect proof of notability. For what it's worth, the musician in question isn't really notable outside the context of other bands (which still makes him notable by WP:MUSIC, not arguing that) but all that seems to justify is a notation in other articles that mention him that he is "formerly of P.T.'s Revenge," as is already done in the Teen Idols article, because that appears to be the only verifiable claim to notability. Even if this article were to stay, most of the information would have to be excised as unverifiable, which would leave it of very limited utility. GassyGuy 19:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is, I'm not from Detroit, we'd need editors from that area to contribute. And I think it is more within the spirit of Wikipedia to allow this article to remain and be expanded, rather than erase it from the record altogether. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 19:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete article does not cite any non-trivial publications to demonstrate subject is noteworthy. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 12:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If notability was sufficient, there would be credible, third-party sources as required by WP:V. -- Satori Son 00:55, 11 October 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.