Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mcrfobrockr/Black Veil Brides




 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was blank page. @harej 23:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Mcrfobrockr/Black Veil Brides
Article unimproved in one month since userification. Recently has become the target of fandalism. No suggestion of editor's intention to improve. Bongo  matic  03:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -"debut album set to be released this year" so they are far off meeting WP:BAND. I really don't see much point userfying articles like this - no tinkering with the article is going to make this band notable. JohnCD (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Blanking would be sufficient, with the user being able to restart work at his convenience. One month is not very long.  Deleting a page because it is vandalised is not the standard response - we should consider warnings, semi-protection, and blocks of the vandal accounts/IPs.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The user has had plenty of time to restart at his own convenience, and has not done so. It is actually somewhat more than one month (userfied at 01:57, 15 August), and the user has not edited the page since 05:30, 15 August. The issue of vandalism is not really central. The article was deleted because it "didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject", and was then re-created and re-deleted for the same reason three more times; eventually it was userfied for one purpose only: so that the user could improve the article by addressing this issue, and, as Bongomatic has pointed out, the user has made no attempt to do so at all: this can be seen in this diff, which shows the changes from when the page was userfied to the last time it was edited by Mcrfobrockr. I see no evidence of any attempt at all to assert importance or significance, and no evidence of notability. The only significant difference between that last edit by Mcrfobrockr and now is that the "label" information has been changed from "Major Label" to "Standby Records". I agree with JohnCD: the band is not notable, and no tinkering with the article would make it notable; the author has been given ample chance to prove otherwise, and has not even attempted to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Blanking would do just fine. Fandalism, really should just require something noting so. Plus, the description of the band is right off of the the band's myspace page. One month isn't an extremely long time, either. And while this band might not have released its debut album yet, its YouTube videos have garnered at least 200,000 views apiece, and it's debut single, Knives and Pens, has had over 1,000,000 views. 16:12 25 September 25


 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.