Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The band Element 115


 * 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.  Kurykh  03:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The band Element 115

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Seemingly non-notable band, creator removed prod, suggests we deduct their notability from search engine results instead of sources.  tomasz.  01:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC) **Nick_Sterling
 * Strong Delete NN rock band. notability from search engine results instead of actual sources isn't how Wikipedia works. This page is also a text book case of this essay (not like it matters to the deletion process, but the characteristics of a "bad garage band page" and this article is uncanny) (there i've scratched it out. Happy?). Links to Gorillaz incorrectly (it links to it like this). They proclaim to be THE "classic rock band in Arizona" when in the Google search the band provides as a source, they come up as the SECOND link. The band is mentioned briefly in this article, which was also picked up by Fox News (Mind you, this Mark Evans article is NOT a review of the band. It only mentions the band in passing because their singer merely talked to Evans about the 60th anniversary of the Roswell incident.) Doc Strange (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When the statement using the search engine reference was removed by author, wiki editor put it back in to try to prove his point.MediaMike (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MediaMike
 * Delete. There aren't enough sources establishing notability. The claim to the first virtual band member might be notable if true but there are no reliable sources establishing it. In any case, The Archies were probably the first. Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comparing the Archies to Element 115 is like comparing a comic book to a feature film. The Archies NEVER performed live, primarily because there were no live characters in the band. Element 115 has successfully combined living human beings and an animated character on stage live. The proof is in the video of the performances, and the reviews by real humans being. Some references to prove the existence of said band, and the claims made in wiki article include
 * FOX TV - Phoenix
 * http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail;jsessionid=1B27618B124AEA883C9BC49BE46D0F9E?contentId=2968090&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1
 * KTVK TV3 - Phoenix
 * http://www.azfamily.com/gmaz/hotline/stories/KTVKGMAZ20071209.7a5ec4c0.html
 * http://www.azfamily.com/gmaz/hotline/stories/KTVKGMAZ20070613.3fa98fe4.html **http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=23656030
 * Synthesis Magazine - San Francisco
 * http://blog.synthesis.net/2008/01/15/i-know-i-already-posted-a-band-youve-never-heard-of-band-of-the-day-but/#more-4236
 * Kevin Smith Show - Internet broadcast, Phoenix
 * http://kevinsmith.mypodcast.com/200711_archive.html
 * MTV-2 New York
 * http://mtv2ontherise.com/?cm=014493
 * City of Roswell
 * http://www.roswellufofestival.com/2007pics.htm
 * CD Baby -
 * http://cdbaby.com/cd/element115
 * iTunes (Apple)
 * http://ax.phobos.apple.com.edgesuite.net/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/browserRedirect?url=itms%253A%252F%252Fax.phobos.apple.com.edgesuite.net%252FWebObjects%252FMZStore.woa%252Fwa%252FviewAlbum%253FplayListId%253D268370877
 * AZReporter.com
 * http://www.azreporter.com/news/index.php?itemid=250
 * Tucson Nightly
 * http://www.tucsonnightly.com/Pictures.php?action=detail&g=photo1184977672
 * How many more do you need? MediaMike (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MediaMike
 * Having read the essay linked in "Doc Strange"s comment above, his assertion that the original posting of the Element 115 article has any similarity at all to said essay has no basis in fact, and that an "uncanny" resemblance exists is truly laughable. For brevity, the essay's "garage band" shall be referred to as GB, and the Element 115 article shall be referred to as "E-115."
 * The essay indicates a GB entry lacks capitalization. E-115 was grammatically proper. Author has taught English.
 * The essay indicates that GB entry has no formatting. E-115 had sophisticated formatting taken directly from the wiki article on the Rolling Stones. You may have heard of them. I recommend looking at the Rolling Stones entry and comparing its uncanny resemblance to E-115 as originally submitted.
 * Ironically, the edit created by wiki-editor lacks formatting, and has everything bunched up as essay indicates is improper. Was that done to "plant evidence" for wiki-editor argument?
 * GB has poorly formatted member list with irrelevant "accomplishments." E-115 has clean, nicely tabled member list.
 * Please note that nowhere in E-115 is the word "hardcore" used.
 * Element 115 CD is professionally duplicated and distributed with over 1,000 copies made.
 * Element 115 is NOT looking for new people (or aliens).
 * Element 115 headlined opening night of a 3 night festival which had Alan Parsons and War on the same stage as Element 115 on the following night. This is verifiable with references given.
 * Element 115's members are musicians, not plumbers or dry-wallers. Music is all they do. How much they make is none of your business.
 * Element 115 has been making music for 12 years. The current line up has been recording and performing for almost 2 years.
 * No claims of Battle of the Band winnings were in the article. Not even the 2nd place in MTV-2's contest in Phoenix.
 * Our rehearsal space is capable of 115db SPL and we've never had a cop or even a neighbor complain.
 * Others who have written about Element 115 have been banned from posting by dogmatic wiki-editors overzealous with their power to delete.
 * I quote the purple tag at the top of the "essay" page because it drives the nail in the coffin of wiki-editor argument: "This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose."
 * It could be argued therefore, that wiki-editor using that reference should not be taken seriously. MediaMike (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MediaMike
 * Comment i'm not using that as a reference (remember that I said "not like it matters"?). It is meant as a humor essay. lighten up. In fact, totally ignore I said that, you're taking things Too seriously. You should also read WP:MUSIC, too.  THAT is a Wikipedia guideline (and you need sources too). Doc Strange (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:BAND. No charted hit, record certified gold or higher, international tours or major music award, not even close. Plus: not "two or more albums on a major label", or "subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national [...] network" not close, just not close, to the standard of "extensive coverage by reliable secondary sources" required by WP:N. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:BAND on multiple counts, particularly lack of charted songs and albums on major labels. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Guidelines can be more flexible than rules, as your lack of editing lesser accomplished, or less innovative acts indicates:
 * Vintage_Rock_Group
 * Dear_and_the_Headlights
 * Hickey (band)
 * A_Future_Loss
 * Eastonashe
 * Tuff (band)
 * Let_Go (band)
 * Dryspell
 * Killwhitneydead.
 * Speed (band)
 * Naked_Prey
 * The_Clare_Voyants
 * Mean_Reds (band)
 * Bombing_Neverland (tagged since 11/07)
 * Mostly_Bears
 * Lydia (band)
 * The_Weird_Lovemakers
 * Catchpenny
 * The_Bled
 * The_Ex-Kings
 * The_Sugi_Tap
 * The_Stiletto_Formal
 * Doo_Rag (band)
 * Bark_Bark_Bark
 * Hector_On_Stilts
 * Mclusky
 * Malignus_Youth
 * N17
 * Eyes Set To Kill
 * Richard_Cheese_and_Lounge_Against_the_Machine
 * Peppermint_Creeps
 * DeSade
 * ...ad infinitum...
 * I'll concede and withdraw until Element 115 meets the Guidelines as written, as long as those Guidelines apply to the above listed entries (and others) and you set for deletion those which fail to meet them. While some of those entries are unique and "notable" by my definition, they fail to meet yours. Some don't even have original material. Element 115 has the unique feature of being the first U.S. band with a virtual member integrated in the show performing "live" with humans. The references cited back the claim. That, arguably, makes the band "notable." They will meet the rest of the criteria. It's only a matter of time. MediaMike (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MediaMike
 * Comment I'm sorry but are you comparing your band to Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine who have appeared on several national television programs like Jimmy Kimmel Live? and have appeared on the soundtrack to a major film? or mclusky who worked with a notable producer? or The Sugi Tap which features two members of Eve 6?. Look, Wikipedia isn't a game of WP:ALLORNOTHING, the fact is your band simply doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, "it's only a matter of time" isn't sufficient per WP:CRYSTAL, when your band DOES satisfy the rest of the WP:MUSIC criteria, then it is notable. Look, if Wikipedia existed in 1986 when Radiohead formed, and Thom Yorke decided to add his band to Wikipedia, the article would've gone through AFD because at the time they didn't meet WP:MUSIC. They would've become notable upon the release of Pablo Honey (their second release on a major label or a prominent indie label, their first being the Drill EP), they would've had sufficient notability. We're not saying your band is bad, we're just saying they're NN right now.  Doc Strange (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please remember that, regardless of the individual notability of each band on that laundry list above (and you seem to have rather skimped on your research on some of them), "other stuff exists" is not considered a valid argument in deletion discussions.  tomasz.  12:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: band fails WP:MUSIC. Mh29255 (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please remember that, regardless of the individual notability of each band on that laundry list above (and you seem to have rather skimped on your research on some of them), "other stuff exists" is not considered a valid argument in deletion discussions.  tomasz.  12:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: band fails WP:MUSIC. Mh29255 (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

My last entry was NOT an argument to avoid deletion. As stated, I capitulate to your argument of not meeting Wiki's stated criteria. Element 115's competition must meet the same criteria, however. I couldn't help but notice that you failed to comment on the first ten entries on the list. They are listed somewhat in magnitude of failing to meet the notability criteria (in my 60 minutes of cursory research). Not only does the first entry have no original product, it is CLEARLY less notable than Element 115. The fact that said entry still has no notice of pending deletion, indicates intentional inequity of at least the wiki-editors who have been informed of the insufficiently notable entry. Why do I care? Until that entry appeared in Wikipedia, they weren't showing up on the first page of a google search. Now, they intermittently show up ahead of Element 115, which has been number 1 for almost a year. That's how I got the idea to post Element 115 on wiki. It obviously helps search engine placement. I'm just asking for fair play in a viciously competitive market. Am I being unreasonable? 68.3.167.64 (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)MediaMike
 * Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ALLORNOTHING do not make good arguments. And you still haven't answered why Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine who have more than sufficient notability per WP:MUSIC are among these groups (you don't have to meet all the criterion, just most of them). Doc Strange (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I've edited the list to those who DEFINITELY fail the requirements. Just because one I have lined-out may also fail, doesn't diminish the argument for removal of the remaining insufficiently qualified entrants (per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ALLORNOTHING). Are you prepared to argue for defending the inclusion of Vintage_Rock_Group? 68.3.167.64 (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)MediaMike
 * You missed The Weird Lovemakers and Killwhitneydead., both definitely notable (although you seem to have struck off Eyes Set to Kill who in my opinion are a definite deletion. Thanks for the effort, i'll probably be nominating some other bands i wasn't aware of before as well. This is still not pertinent to this debate, however: the onus on you is to prove Element 115 is notable, not that Other Band X isn't.  tomasz.  09:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read my capitulation statement two entries back. 68.3.167.64 (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)MediaMike
 * ok.  tomasz.  11:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you even READ WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ALLORNOTHING? The first line of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". Which pretty much destroys your argument. You reasoning that your band is as notable as these other bands is pretty much useless. I'm not defending Vintage_Rock_Band (you can nominate them for deletion if you wish), but your reasoning is strange. Your band simply fails WP:MUSIC and this AfD is about your band, not Killwhitneydead., not Dryspell, not any other of these bands. Doc Strange (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, people, please visit the dictionary under the word "capitulate." Look, I'll save you the effort. I WITHDRAW THE REQUEST FOR INCLUSION. Please! Make my day! REMOVE THE ENTRY! I give! UNCLE! Ore kuppuku! I concede to your randomness!68.3.167.64 (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)MediaMike
 * Delete, band fails WP:MUSIC, and also now speedyable under G7 and A3 I suspect. Lankiveil (complaints 03:00, 27 January 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.