Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Merry Thoughts


 * 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   no consensus. no sufficient consesus has come from this already extended listing. Nja 247 08:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The Merry Thoughts

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

Very little references. Page remains practically unchanged since it was moved userspace to mainspace. Band last played in 2000. No Google search results for anyone in the band after 2000. Recommending deletion. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 21:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There are sufficient references on this page, certainly compared to many other articles pertaining to musical groups. Also, deleting a band because it has been defunct since 2000 hardly constitutes adequate reason. We should probably delete the Beatles if one follows this ludicrous logic. One problem that appears to be recurring here is that certain wikipedia 'authorities' without any evident knowledge of the subject have assumed that the lack of current references invalidates this article. This is simply not the case. As evidence of the continued relevance of this particular musical group within a specific genre please follow the link to the very latest DJ playlist from June 2009 at London's top goth club, Invocation, where you will see that this band's music continues to figure at major club nights almost ten years after their demise. http://www.invocation-night.net/setlists.html?032 ChiRed (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Looks like another faux pas. As a newbie I had no idea inviting admins to participate in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of an article was prohibited. The individual who persists in pushing this article for deletion advised above that no-one has yet discussed the article, despite my recommendation that it be moved to a more objective venue for discussion. I thought it worthwhile to request the intervention of editors who have previously contributed to related articles. If this constitutes canvassing then it was done to avoid the deletion of this article without due consideration by informed persons. ChiRed (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The above user is the creator of the article in this AfD. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 22:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: And that is relevant why? You have marked a legitimate article for deletion and the only response to my objection above is this assertion which is deliberately loaded, presumably to imply a lack of objectivity on my part? May I suggest that this article is taken off the AfD list and instead is added to the Gothic Rock Talk page where people with a sincere and unbiased critical perspective may debate whether it meets Wikipedia criteria. Thank you. ChiRed (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the AfD process will work itself out. Right now no one has voted, so it will be up to the closing admin. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 22:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin has been canvassing.   Ndenison  talk  13:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. I know nothing about the genre or the band. But, firstly I can see that having this article here means one less red-link in Whitby Gothic Weekend. Thus this topic is already integrated into the Wikipedia article tree, albeit tenuously at the moment. Other bands comparable with this one are found via the above article. Whilst this band may not be notable to you or I, clearly I can see that it is notable to fans of the Gothic Rock genre, based on a multitude of Google search results and mention on various unofficial websites. It may have the potential for further references out there somewhere. However, by its very nature of being a non-mainstream genre, it is likely to suffer a dearth of references in "mainstream" journalistic outlets, compared to say pop or classical music. Does this make it any less encyclopedic than those genres? Perhaps not, so I'd err on the side of allowing this article to exist in the hope that authors familiar with the genre are able to dig out some more supporting references eventually. Benkid77 (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - We could "hope" that all authors familiar with a page come along and work on them eventually, but if we did that, we would have a crapload of pages that aren't going anywhere laying about with little to no references, a small growing linkfarm for external links and no new information about a band since 2000. It should, at best, be sent back to userspace until more information and references can be found or at worst, deleted outright.  "Hope" and waiting isn't an option. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 23:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Whilst I have no vested interest in whether the article gets kept or not, I do think that taking out an article which already links in with similar articles and contains useful information is a little hasty in this case. The records listed and other info can be verfied, although I readily admit that the article is lacking in "authorative" sources. I certainly accept your point about "hope", but I think there'll be far less hope that the article will be improved if moved into userspace than if it is left in the encyclopedia where multiple users can view it and potentially work on it further. Why be so quick to remove it when there is no time limit for the article's improvement? It is more useful to have it available than not IMHO. Benkid77 (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - If, as you incorrectly state, the standard for inclusion is new information, then why has this article not been deleted (or most of the articles on the project for that matter). Ndenison  talk  19:54, 11 July 2009 (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.