Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Run (Rock 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   delete.  kur  ykh   05:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Run (Rock band)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nonnotable band. Keep having to fix bad wikilinks by original author (see history) and deleting references that are Forums, etc. Being on the radio a little doesn't make you notable. I've tried to clean it up to see if it would be ok, but author keeps reverting to wikilink stuff improperly, etc. so I give up. P HARMBOY ( TALK ) 11:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:BAND requires groups to be "in rotation nationally by any major radio network" to qualify via radio. This doesn't meet that or any of the others.  tomasz.  12:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Actually, a band does not have to be "in rotation nationally by any major radio network" to qualify as notable, it can hit many of the other WP:MUSIC criteria but that (a great example of this is The Fall), but this band does not meet any of the WP:MUSIC critereon and the articles only attempt at notability is a list of five or so radio stations that the band allegedly gets airplay on. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 14:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, a band does not have to be "in rotation nationally by any major radio network" to qualify as notable, it can hit many of the other WP:MUSIC criteria. Yes, that is why i wrote to qualify via radio. i.e. to qualify for notability status via the "radio play" criterion of WP:BAND (#11), which is the only one they come within a country mile of being able to claim. i also said the article doesn't meet "any of the others", i.e. any of the other 11 criteria of WP:BAND (#1 - 10 & 12). Please read again. Thank-you.  tomasz.  15:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, right you are. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 15:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that being on the radio a little does not make a band notable. But the band was added to regular rotation on many stations, which meets the criteria for notability. Also fulfilling the criteria is the fact that the bands music was used repeatedly in two different network television programs Road Rules & Battle for Ozzfest. These aren't just claims... They are facts. Thanks for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.81.23 (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing is "fact" unless it is cited, and nothing is cited here. I reverted yet more bad wikilinks to boot.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 18:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not here to argue with anyone. They are facts. I witnessed them. Wikipedias policies may restrict you from allowing the information if it's not properly cited, but that doesn't diminish the facts. I've personally heard the band played in regular rotation on these radio stations recently and many others while the band was on tour in 2005. Please consider that this is a nationally touring act as well (yet another of the notability requirements. That's 3 total, with only one being required). The write up in "Arizona" Weekly Entertainment Magazine about a "Los Angeles" band actually verifies that they are a nationally touring act. Darren Mercier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrenmercier (talk • contribs) 16:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You would do better to work within the guidelines here to try to keep the article, rather than using an emotional appeal (which is guaranteed to NOT work). A small amount of uncited material is allowed in an article for a while (thus, the reason the FACT tag exists) but in general, Original Research (your personal witnessing) isn't.  You can easily shut everyone here up by simply providing enough verification using reliable sources.  I never understand why people want to argue instead of just fixing the problem.  If it can't be fixed, then that supports the idea of deleting.  I probably save one or two articles per week that were overwhelmingly DELETE by first adding tons of citations, THEN saying something in the AFD about it, and watching others change their votes.  Its called putting your money where your mouth is.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 18:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Wikipedias policies may restrict you from allowing the information if it's not properly cited, but that doesn't diminish the facts". Exactly. So till proper cites appear (no sign yet), Wikipedia's policies do indeed restrict us from allowing it. Also the radio criterion doesn't fly as none of the quoted stations are national networks, and an article in a newspaper from a different state to the one the band are from doesn't come within a country mile of proving they have toured nationally.  tomasz.  16:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Also note a "Darren Mercier" is the band's bassist. Tho' it could be someone else of that name, of course.  tomasz.  16:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the observation. I am the bassist. I'm not trying win anyone over with emotions. I don't understand how these facts could be more credible if they are coming straight from the source. Still, I don't need sympathy. But I simply don't know what you mean by "citations". I'm not here looking for free advertising. I would love to substantiate these facts for you. Problem is, I'm a musician and probably not as computer savvy as any of you. Perhaps I can have our record label, lawyer and management company send letters verifying these facts. Our first album is signed to a nationwide distribution deal with Sony/BMG. If I can verify this is it cool? But then we're back to me not knowing how to "cite" it. If you can ellaborate on how to properly "cite" these facts, I'll be happy to comply. I've read the policies but simply don't know where to begin. Thanks for your input. I look forward to getting it straightened out. Darren Mercier (The bass player) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.81.23 (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The article really should be written by an independent, third party. As it stands right now, your participation to this point violates Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest and also is strong evidence that this article is an advertisement. It adds more justification for deletion. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is why Wikipedia requires that the article is written by someone NOT in the band. You may mean well, but you also have information that is not written anywhere and can't be verified.  All encyclopedia material must be verifiable.  One of the basic tenents of Wikipedia is that we are not interested in TRUTH, we are interested in that which can be VERIFIED by independent parties (news papers, reputable internet sites, etc.)  It is a core principal.  P HARMBOY  ( TALK ) 01:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a very clear understanding. Ignorance is no excuse but it was all I had. Perhaps the information will be submitted by an independant when some of the facts are a bit easier to cite. Sorry for being a thorn in anyones side. Remove at will. Darren Mercier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.81.23 (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. The article seems to have just been created 5 days ago. Understandably the creation of the article by a band member brings up questions however many Wikipedia articles seem to have been started by people close to the subject and at some point they either take on a life of their own or are deleted. Five days seems too short to allow any article to grow, no matter who may have started it.Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2008 (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.