Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vonn


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Vonn

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

Dismally fails WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. The site Doom-metal.com that is mentioned in the opening paragraph is strictly a fanboy endeavour -- copious levels of genuine media coverage are acutely lacking. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete We can't find their CDs and we don't know who's in the band? //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  09:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MUSIC, band has one self-released album to their name. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MUSIC, one self-released album (although they did self-release it twice). Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if I am doing this right because this was my first page for wikipedia.

The reason I added the band Vonn as my first page - and why I felt they were noteworthy in wikipedia - is that I felt they truly summed up the essence of what extreme doom metal is, with its obscurity, extremity, and the fact that the band refuse to do interviews, be properly identified or conduct interviews. I am a journalist and we tried to get an interview with the band by going through one of the larger bands that the members are in, but they refused. Also the fact that reviews of the album all cite the music as the most extreme music the reviewers have heard, one of the reasons we wanted to interview them. I therefore thought a wikipedia page would be appropriate. Anyway, if it's not deemed worthy of inclusion, so be it. No big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SabenaSB (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 October 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.