Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunjammer


 * 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 13:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sunjammer
Vanity - not factual - of no interest Optime 17:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Carrying on from discussion:


 * Any link from that list that might be seen as commercial, you're free to edit them out. A discography for an artist is not "of no interest". The blog one, sure, it's arguably personal, but i'd be surprised to see a blog link being deleted from Trent Reznor's page for instance. Bias.


 * When biographical information is central to the subject matter, i'd reckon it's relevant.


 * The page is not a personal tribute. I can do that on my own site thanks much, and i have. It is meant to be an explanation of sunjammer the musician. Bands *are represented on wikipedia*. Deal with it. For instance, system of a down or nine inch nails, both more elaborate than the Sunjammer entry by far. Why? Because you argue more have interest in them because it is a broader subject matter? Your argument falls flat. Bias.


 * "Empty of interest to anyone" is a pretty bold claim. Empty of interest to YOU perhaps, but considering the amount of shows Sunjammer has played, to fair critical acclaim (being compared with artists such as Venetian Snares for instance, who i might add also has a more detailed page).


 * Then, your first statement is riddled with bias. "Notable" wasn't even added by me, but by DragonFly in the first revision. Check the rev history before bringing up specifics. Stating i am not an artist is ignorance. I am a musician with a fair history of shows, releases and backing the scenes i've been a part of. I am as much an artist as the aforementioned Venetian Snares, and as such i am entitled to an entry for the project. Your personal bias belongs elsewhere.


 * I'll make another revision taking heed to the issues you have brought up, much like i'd appreciate it if you also did, rather than vandalize and delete the contents. If Sunjammer is of no interest, what of Knifehandchop? This entire argument smacks of personal bias.


 * Decept404 17:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral for now . Decept404 and an anonymous contributor, possibly the nominator, have been insulting each other on Talk:Sunjammer. They both ought to read No personal attacks, Verifiability, and Notability (music) before continuing. Melchoir 17:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Autobiography. Melchoir 17:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Apologies if this was a completely awful thing to write. My first wiki post, grant me one mistake? I tried to keep the article as unbiased as possible. Not to sell, more to avoid being misrepresented (i know, possibly pretentious). Decept404 17:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please understand that creating a new article here is not comparable to a "post" elsewhere on the Internet. Even if this article is deleted, you shouldn't take it personally; deletions happen all the time, and we still welcome contributions on other topics.
 * My main concern is whether even the remaining information here is verifiable, let alone meeting WP:MUSIC. Now that it's on AfD, we may as well wait for others to comment. Melchoir 18:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't take it personally if this didn't seem like an openly personal attack. If the reasons for deletion were clear, as opposed to what seems like reasons for revisions rather than all-out deletion, i'd welcome it. No worries. I'm already working on more articles of broader interest. Decept404 18:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, the nomination was definitely a personal attack, but it had some merit, however badly stated. Anyway, I was just bracing you in the event of a deletion, which now seems less likely. It's good to see that you're moving on. Melchoir 18:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Article is unverifiable and subject "not notable" as in Wikipedia:Notability (music). Optime 17:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that Optime's account seems to have been created for the sole purpose of destroying this article. Melchoir 18:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * True in as "move article to user space" Optime 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're quite tenuous, considering you've left represented artists with NO releases at all out of the equation, this in addition to your personal insults leads me to believe you have an agenda. On the notability subject:
 * "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." - Sunjammer is along with Petrochemical the *only* norwegian export of gabba and hardcore techno.
 * "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." - Playlists for NRK P3 can be found here: http://www2.nrk.no/spillelister/sending.aspx?prog=578&tid=2003-12-30%2022:05:00Z
 * NRK being the national radio network provider for norway.
 * "Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre." - How this can be verifiable is beyond me, but have a chat with DJ Producer or Hellfish, or (i'm told) Aphex Twin. Sunjammer is deep underground. It's more about playing shows than releasing records and making money.
 * "Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre." - Established is an open term. I know Sunjammer has inspired an interest in combining classical music with noise and industrial. This is about as verifiable as anything in such a limited scene.
 * I'm not going to fight this anymore, there isn't much more i can say. "Verifiable" quickly becomes me dropping a bunch of links, which doesnt feel worth it because it really is a niche thing. I'm not going to bicker any more. If an admin feels this article is worth deleting in spite of all my argumentation, that's the end of that matter as far as i'm concerned. It does feel like this article has seen unjust attention from people with a personal grudge however (though i consider myself a pretty nice guy, what'd i do wrong hey?); There is far less "relevant" material on wiki at the moment, which leads me to believe verification of the importance of subject matter, in a lot of cases, is limited to a google search.
 * Decept404 18:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. This appears to have become a personal feud between the article's creator (Decept404), and the AfD nominator, Optime. If someone will provide a link to prove WP:MUSIC compliance, I'll vote Keep, otherwise, Delete. WP:MUSIC proved to me. I'm a WP:MUSIC nazi. --^demon 18:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given the NRK P3 airing, I think music notability is established. Melchoir 18:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (I've edited the article to reflect this info.) Melchoir 18:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So you took my "choirboy" and raised it by "sold out"? ;) I'm good with this. Anything else in the article you reckon i should strip? Decept404 18:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Optime 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep ditto Melchoir. -Jcbarr 20:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep Kingturtle 19:46, 15 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.