Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Acacia Strain


 * 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The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 14:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)}}

The Acacia Strain

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article has no sources (and if none exists, does not meet WP:GNG), and none of the unsourced content indicates that the group meets WP:MUSIC. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - First, this nomination is illegitimate. If the previous people who worked on the article failed to add sources, that is a reason for others to expand and improve the article, and NOT a reason for deletion. The nominator also said "if none exists" (key word is IF) meaning that he/she didn't do good-faith research before nominating. These are all obvious violations of #1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 of WP:BEFORE, making this whole AfD useless except for the fact that now the rest of us know the article needs improvement. As for this band, they have an acceptable level of coverage at |ACACIA|STRAIN&sql=11:dvfoxqraldae~T0 AllMusic, where the Charts & Awards tab notes their several placements on the charts, a fact that is easily verifiable at Billboard. I also found a few other sources and added them to the article, plus a few edit and cleanup tags, which didn't take much more time than writing this vote. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 21:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per some of what Doomsdayer520 says above has coverage on allmusic.com and have released on a significant record label. VirtualRevolution (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I disagree that the nomination was illegitimate. The article has existed for over 10 months.  In all that time, no legitimate source has been added.  Articles may not stand around unsourced on Wikipedia forever.  Adding tags is helpful when new information is added that can likely be sourced, but this information was not new.   The only legitimate part of WP:BEFORE (which I do not believe has the force of policy, as it does not match what WP:DEL, the actual policy, says) is #9.  #1 is untrue, #2 doesn't apply (this article is not a stub, has not recently been vandlized, etc.), #3 blatantly contradicts WP:V and WP:BLP (that is, no one has to choose to use tags rather than remove unverified information; had I removed the unverified info, nothing would have been left in the article), #9 I violated, and #10 doesn't apply (this is not a recently created article).  In any event, the AfD did what no one bothered to do for over a year--make this article follow the core WP:V and WP:BLP policies.  That means, in my opinion, that nominating for AfD was the correct approach.  As such I now...
 * Withdraw the nomination: With the addition of new sources, the band now appears to meet WP:MUSIC. I still question whether it meets WP:GNG, but apparently the community has somehow decided that WP:MUSIC's far lest stringent criteria trump WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 24 August 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.