Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powerglove (band)


 * 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   keep. Appears to now meet WP:BAND after significant work and new developments ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Powerglove (band)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)



Recreated non-notable page yet again, which has been removed and redirected a total of 4 times. I see nothing that's changed to satisfy any of the requirements at WP:BAND, save it was just announced on a given website they signed with an indie label. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This band is notable in the respects that they are one of the more prominent bands in the video game genre, they have consistently toured with very well known bands and the record company they have signed to is E1 music who also has a number of extremely well known artists: see List of E1 Music artists. This band is notable. 94.192.87.215 (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:BAND. Covered by Game Informer and G4, both of which are on WikiProject Video games list of reliable sources. Toured the US and Canada 2 or 3 times. As the first VG music band signed to a real label, you could even make the claim that they're prominent representatives of the genre. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitively a notable band. Cult following, many US tours, and now labeled : they are a perfectly legit band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fratt (talk • contribs) 14:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that this has now spilled over in to violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on conduct with this recent edit on my talk page, and the commentary and personal attacks regarding this deletion discussion on the given blog page. That includes WP:GOODFAITH, and WP:PERSONAL, as well as Inappropriate canvasing and plain old WP:CIVIL. Note that the author of the current entry and the blog page is a band member according to self admission on that blog page, and that WP:COI and WP:NOTADVERTISING will have to be followed if the article is kept. Likewise I have a big problem with this sort of conduct of trying to engage others to come here simply to vote and/or comment (as shown by the new editor anonymous IP's), which is also against Wikipedia policy. This deletion was simply filed because it was for an article already deleted four times before (which that alone throws up flags), with little given in the current recreation by the way of reliable or notable references to anything that's significantly changed from the previous four times. The accusations of personal agenda and the conduct I'm being accused of, and the personal attacks I'm seeing are not warranted. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Disclaimer, I am not a member of Powerglove, which is what I thought the previous comment might be inferring, nor am I the user that re-created the page, but I am the user who has updated the article with citations, sources, and the most up-to-date info on the band. I know to be notable on Wikipedia, a band has to have top charting singles or have released at least two albums on a major label or large indie label, but I think being signed to E1 Music does give 'Glove some grounds to be considered for notability. They've released an EP, an album, toured with national acts such as DragonForce and Hammer Fall, and will be releasing their next two albums on E1 Music, the first of which will be this fall. I know that you said the reason you suggested the page for deletion was because it has been created and deleted four times now, but please take my points into consideration. Based on the blog post, I'm sure Chris of Powerglove would appreciate it. FallenWings47 (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This is actually Chris from Powerglove. I have deleted any reference to you and any hateful comments on the blog and elsewhere on our sites and will continue to do so. I did not expect the reaction to be as vitriolic as it was and I regret any personal attacks committed by our fans. That said, it's a personal blog containing only my feelings on the matter and not any instructions to post here or do anything. The process as I understand it is not about voting to keep or delete but the merits of the argument for notability which I think are proven by the above comments. Feel free to delete this paragraph if it shouldn't be here but I figured it was the right place for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.238.255 (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I consider the Game informer coverage sufficient to establish notability under wp:BAND (or indeed, under wp:GNG). Buddy431 (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Looks like the sources Wyatt Riot produced establish sufficient notability. Also found some additional coverage and . A note to those who were canvassed here from outside Wikipedia, it is not the band's article per se; it is the Wikipedia community's article, and it may be edited by others and at will within the basic guidelines and common sense. –MuZemike 05:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep add Boston Herald, 11 June 2008, "They've got game; Hub's Powerglove gives Nintendo tunes a metal makeover" by Jed Gottlieb to the coverage. duffbeerforme (talk)
 * That they now just make it past wp:music (my opinion) is in no way questioning Marty Goldberg. Attacks on him for this nomination are pathetic and respect to Chris for cleaning up his blog. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Given several sources with reliable, significant coverage were found in this discussion (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Powerglove can meet WP:BAND. Some of the current refs in the article aren't enough to carry the weight by themselves, however given what's here is added I see no issue other than some copy editing/wikifying/general improvements.--Teancum (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2010 (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.