Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strata (band) (second nomination)


 * 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. This band has actual media coverage. Friday (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Strata (band)
Vanity, and non-notability. See below Green hornet 19:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Renominated for deletion this second time in accordance with Wikipedia: Deletion Review because no consensus was reached in last debate. Band has not demonstrated notability. Evidence of vanity. Stand behind earlier arguments and wikipedia policy in WP:MUSIC requiring two releases, and a lack of reliable sources outside of their own website giving details of a tour. See also WP:NOTE, WP:RS. Having read the earlier arguments I am anticipating a string of google hits as an argument. Don't bother, as I can get a string of google hits for any number of random people, words, and concepts, but does not demonstrate the slighest notability. Furthemore, the onus is or should be on those who wish to keep the article, to demonstrate notability and adherance to WP:MUSIC especially, using verifiable sources which can not include the band or fan gossip due to their biased self-promotional unreliability. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for fancruft. Band has one album out, not REQUIRED two. Green hornet 19:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per green hornet. --Storkk 14:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nothing is wrong with the article. There is something wrong with re-opening an AfD a day after it closed. Sour grapes. Bad faith nom. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 17:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete no citations from non-trivial publications (or any citations for that matter) to demonstrate notability. No listed releases on a major label. Fails WP:MUSIC. Note to AfD is not an attack on the subject, it's a crucible for the article. Try improving it. -- User:Malber (talk • contribs) 17:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I put some citations in. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 22:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Just came out of an AFD, extraordinarily bad form to keep renominating an article when you don't get the delete result you like. All that aside, being in Madden 2005 certainly raises them above garage-band status. Turnstep 01:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment- "keep renominating" makes it sound like I have renominated it more than once. In fact, I only renominated it one time, but that renomination was immediately closed by a non-admin citing WP:IAR. Someone else reopened it at that point. According to a Wikipedia policy article that I am too sick of repeating, it is a common practice for a quick renom if it is due to non-consensus. If there was a consensus to keep then I would not have renominated the article. It is not bad form. In the end though, Wikipedia is not a democracy and all articles should conform to policies and standards set up to keep Wikipedia at an academic level...notability and verifiability criteria should not be neglected or placed at lesser importance to subjective opinions about an articles worth. Green hornet 02:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The thing is, we have provided verifiable sources which show how the band meets WP:MUSIC, and therefore is notable. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 17:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? The first nomination was closed, by an admin, after six days, with a "no consensus" result. Where do you see WP:IAR? Turnstep 18:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarification. Turnstep: the REnomination was closed by a non-admin...IAR...etc etc. The renomination by then reopened by a user who I am unclear is an admin or a non-admin. Green hornet 02:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not MySpace.— Arbusto 05:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not MySpace"??? How is that relevant to this AfD? I don't think anyone is using this article for social networking or band promotion purposes. It is just an encyclopediac article describing a notable band whose notability has been asserted with reliable sources. PT  ( s-s-s-s ) 16:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is band promotion. Its a mentions members and links to their myspace. Proof of notability? Arbusto 00:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The band is listed at the All Music Guide, they are signed to Wind-Up Records, and their debut album charted on the Billboard Top Heatseekers chart. There is no reason to delete this. Dmiles21 09:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - One album, plus a song on a major (if mediocre) movie soundtrack, plus a song on a major game soundtrack squeaks them in on the notability scale. -Kubigula (ave) 21:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's looking like a fairly even divide between keep and delete as of 13OCT. I'm anticipating a ruling of no consensus yet again. This even match on so many AfD's is getting to look like American presidential elections. Such a close match means each side thinks that they are really the winners. Whatever. Anyone else going to vote, just please vote according to your conscience and honest interpretation of WP notability policies, whatever that may be. Green hornet 02:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, guess what? They release an album next year and all this bickering will be moot. There are lots of bands on Wikipedia with only one album to their name, and you guys aren't arguing about them, but they're all notable in any case. For a group that wants to be the biggest encyclopedia on the web, you're sure putting down a lot of ridiculous restrictions on who or what can be included. I would think you'd be happy that someone took the time to add a new article to your collection. And before you jump to any conclusions, I did not write the article in question, but I know a stupid debate when I see it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.33.193.105 (talk).


 * Oh, and by the way, the band does have more than one album already. As Downside they released three albums independently prior to becoming Strata. Is that satisfactory? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.33.193.105 (talk).


 * 65.33.193.105, you need to sign your comments. You also need to stop vandalising AfD tags and then arguing with people about WP policy regarding notability standards until you understand what WP requires to meet those standards. The appropriate policies have been noted. Independant releases do not neccessarily meet the requirements. If you have references then it might be a legitimate argument. Also be civil because a lack of civility makes me cease being civil. Also Strata are most likely not releasing their second album at the expected time as a large portion of their output was rejected by the label. They were supposed to be finished with it, but it was largely scrapped. They are starting to record and rewrite again and might squeeze out another album on Wind Up by late 2007. At that time they would meet the minimum notability standards and can have an article. Green hornet 20:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per the outcome of Articles for deletion/Strata (band) -- the AFD process is not intended to be used to repeatedly nominate articles for deletion until they are deleted -- especially when the subsequent nomination occurs only one day after the closure of the previous nomination. John254 06:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I repect everyone's vote, but it shouldn't be based on the earlier vote, especially as the earlier vote was no consensus. Vote based on your understanding of WP policy and remember that WP is not a democracy. There are standards that are not optional no matter how many people say this or that. The only valid vote is one made according to a honest appraisal of WP policy. Please vote keep or delete based on this rather than your concept of whether it is in bad taste to renominate. I have also already shown WP policy that regards a renomination under these circumstances as regular. Green hornet 20:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per above RiseRobotRise 08:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strata themselves have noted that the current recording sessions will not affect their planned spring release. They scrapped only a third of the album and probably some of those songs will only be reworked, not totally thrown aside. There is absolutely no reason why they cannot have an album out by April or May and therefore no basis for your assumption that they "maybe will have it out by late 2007". Furthermore, your attitude leads me to suspect that you might hold some kind of bias since you are the one who keeps asking for the article's deletion and will not let it go. There are several bands on Wikipedia with only one or two albums to their name that could be viewed as "non-notable" and yet you are not fervently attacking those articles. Therefore, I see no reason to be civil to someone who is spending all their time begging for the deletion of a perfectly good article, especially someone who is part of a group dedicated to the very goal. I find your cover of "keeping the Wikipedia pristine" laughable. It seems more like your goal is to eradicate the articles that you don't like. Yes, Wikipedia has standards, but the standards should be working toward expanding Wikipedia, not dissolving it.Blah 11:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is the above comment attributed to Blah when it was placed by 65.33.193.105 (talk), a known vandal? Of course Strata are going to say that they are reworking the songs and it won't affect the release date, assuming that a new album really will be released. That's not relevant. The planned release is far enough in the future for no verifiability. It is irrelevant to the discussion. So are the self-released albums. Anyone anywhere can put them out. Self-released albums do not have sufficient notability to have their own articles, nor does it take Strata from being a one album band to a three album band. Wikipedia shouldn't just be a ragtag group of articles expanding to include every little bit of fandom and every local band and endless lists of trivia and whatnot. It should be ever-improving in quality more importantly than endlessly expanding in content- unless that content is truly encyclopedic...otherwise wikipedia should drop the -pedia in its name and go by wikispace or something. Furthermore you have no grasp of what deletionism really entails. Your perception of bias fails to take into account that I have participated in many AfD's, and even have voted keep! Many of the AfD have been on diverse subjects as I often have run across them on the Articles for Deletion page. Whether they had to do with bands or not is irrelevant. I oppose articles for any band with less than the required two! I don't think it matters whether you think that is important or not because it IS policy! Wikipedia claims to not be a democracy, which it shouldn't be since knowledge is not democratic but rather objective. It doesn't matter if every WP editor votes that 2+2=5 because it certainly does not. WP needs to enforce its standards more thoroughly. Nearly everyone else other than 65.33.193.105 on this debate has been very civil. First you said that this is a stupid debate, which it is not. You also said that there is no reason to be civil to me. Go ahead and do whatever you want with this article, give everyone everywhere anytime their own 40 page wp article. Whatever. It is sad that anytime I do a web search...yahoo, google, whatever, several links are wikipedia pages that have glaring editorial errors. This is a major problem. Editors constantly writing and editing non-notable, unverifiable, POV, and unreferenced information here. Now I cannot even find relevent information on a search engine because of the shortcomings deriving from a lax enforcement of policy here. And finally, I am not pushing for a delete. I am nominating for it. I am not trying to force anyone else's vote. I am asking for honest votes per policy. Vote according to your conscience, although I hope my points are understood. I'm done defending my reasons for nomination, and think I'm going to leave the debate to finish on its own so I can clean up some religion of India articles. Godspeed. Green hornet 19:39, 16 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.