Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RockAbilly.US


 * 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

RockAbilly.US
This article was originally created as an objective synopsis, but now I ask for its deletion. An anonymous user has posted many comments, most of those being slanderous lies. This article is not the proper forum for people with personal vendettas writing false, damaging opinions, wasting the time of users who have to delete such bias. Idigworms 13:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep no different to many articles, just needs more people to watch the page for vandalism. (but its not really many comments - 3 or 4 according to the history - Im assuming this is the type of thing you mean: ) The group gets 20k hits on google so it seems well known enough to keep -- Astrokey44 |talk 15:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete i dunno, who knows for sure that more people will watch this page for vandalism? if they arent obligated to, then more vandalisms will happen if the person who wrote them is believed, he said he would keep writing: .  this should be treated with as much care as the infamous john siegenthaler, sr. page, but only problem is, more people know about his history and what is and isnt true about him.... .with this music groups comparitive low profile, and since they doont have a nat'l platform (USA TODAY) to defend themselves, how will people know what is true and what is slander.  with that i say delete. Ruinsdomino 00:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's not verifiable it doesn't belong in Wikipedia and will usually be very quickly deleted. I bothered to do a little research and could not find anything to back up some of the claims that were added to the article, so I removed them. Peyna 04:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as no valid reason to delete. This nomination is an abuse of the AfD process. If people are violating the NPOV policy use the dispute resolution procedure, i.e. WP:RFC, WP:RFM, WP:RFAR. Stifle 16:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, apparently one of the page's contributors was fed up with some vandalism, but such is the way of Wikipedia. Remove the vandalism, if necessary, notify people that need to be notified, but they appear to be notable enough to be worthy of inclusion  Peyna 04:29, 22 January 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.