Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turd-Ad


 * 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 delete. Shanel 01:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Turd-Ad
Was originally prodded, but contested by author. Now listing on AfD. Original reason: NN forum website that would probably fail WP:WEB. Article is poorly written, although that isn't a reason for deletion... Kareeser|Talk! 20:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What needs to be done if this article is to remain? Sweet Clyde 20:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; The reason that I listed "Turd-Ad" on WP:PROD, and then Articles for deletion was simply because I do not consider your band/website to be particularly notable. On the other hand, if you can provide proof that your band has done something notable, or that something notable has happened to the band/website, and can assert that nobility, then by all means, you may keep your article (after the AfD debate concludes).
 * At any rate: Wikipedia isn't a hosting space, nor is it a fan page, but if proof is provided that shows that Turd-Ad merits an article of its own, then the community will decide in your favour. Kareeser|Talk! 20:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't regard them as my band, but I am the proprietor of the record label to which they are assigned. Anyhow, I'll see what I can do. Sweet Clyde 20:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Advertising for a non-notable pair of buffoons. BrianGCrawfordMA 22:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete quote:"has never attained even moderate success". establishes its own non-notability. Camillus (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Camillus. -- Kinu t /c  00:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable, no album released. Possibly the creation of a 15-year old (and friends).  &mdash;ERcheck @ 02:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The album is pending a release very soon, so when it is released the band will be notable? Ercheck:"possibly the creation of a 15 year old". You are incorrect although I fail to see what bearing the age of the author or contributors has on the quality or relevance of the article.JohnOHara 12:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; Hi, John. To meet notability guidelines for music bands (including independant bands) for inclusion into Wikipedia, they must meet the guidelines as stated here (WP:MUSIC). If Turd-Ad can meet the criteria for inclusion, then you will be able to argue for your side. As for the "15 year old" comment, I believe that ERcheck was simply referring to the fact that most 15 year-olds aren't the kind to produce something notable, much less WP-inclusionable. Kareeser|Talk! 14:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * michael jackson did! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.48.246 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment &mdash; Hence the "most" in the above reply, =P Kareeser|Talk! 18:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would regard the phrase "non-notable pair of buffoons" quite offensive and believe that such blatant effrontery has no place on Wikipedia. I would simply like to add that Turd-Ad has a quite significant fan-base and, as aforementioned, is working on the release of an album with contributions from a wider group of affiliates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Romano (talk • contribs)
 * Comment &mdash; Please note Dr Romano's only contribution: Here.

Wikipedia is criticised on the following issues:

* Usefulness as a reference * Anti-elitism as a weakness * Systemic bias in coverage * Systemic bias in perspective * Difficulty of fact checking * Use of dubious sources * Exposure to vandals * Privacy concerns * Quality Concerns * Flame wars * Fanatics and special interests [see note 1] * Censorship [see note 2]

Note 1: I don't think dance music, Turd-Ad's main output, can be classified as specialist. Note 2: Yes, censorship. The act of disallowing someone's right to free thought and speech and freedom of information. This is what Wikipedia is once again doing, going against its very reasons for being.

Another point I would like to put to you regards the nature of your style of moderation. You seem to be working against us, not with us, trying to get this article deleted in an effort to flex your authorative muscles and show who's "boss". Your opinion is not better than ours. Wikipedia is a mass of human information and therefore should contain information that all humans want, whether it may be "specialist" to some it would not be to others. Surely going with the majority feeling or opinion is not in the best interest of the minority? Instead all tastes should be catered for. This page does harm to no-one but helps and pleases others. We kindly ask you not to delete this article. JohnOHara 20:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; The Wikipedia community (and I believe I represent several peoples' opinions here) isn't all against you. In fact, while I may have sounded rather harsh in dealing with this, the listing on AfD and the ensuing discussion is simply following guidelines detailed in Articles for Deletion. Wikipedia isn't a space for free speech (as that may sometimes violate the NPOV policy), nor is it (and this is important) a free web-hosting service. Non-notable entries are entirely that: Non-notable, and therefore, should not be included in Wikipedia until they can be proven to be notable. Kareeser|Talk! 20:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as nn ad Compu  te  r  Jo  e  20:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

But some of reasons for being notable are hardly clear-cut. 30 minutes on a radio broadcast? What if Turd-Ad was featured for 29? (I believe it was featured on 2FM). Surely the rule should be: "Featured for a notable amount of time on a radio broadcast" I know you don't have the power to change that rule but you can see where I am coming from.81.129.71.209 20:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; The reason behind the clear black-and-white distinction in the criteria for notability under WP:MUSIC is due to the fact that it is not good form to say "a notable amount of time". Being an ambiguous phrase, exceptions can be made, and if exceptions are made, then the standard is lowered, and later on, many articles that formerly would have failed the guidelines set out through WP:MUSIC would make it through. It is unfortunate to say that if you've been on 29 minutes, you've failed the test, but that's the rule. Kareeser|Talk! 20:50, 19 February 2006 (U


 * 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.