Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cobaye Molotov

How can anyone judge a band (or their music) to be "not worth writing about" on behalf of the Internet community? Even a garage band merits a factual article in the encyklopedia. Speak for yourselves, and don't read about the band if you don't like them, but don't pretend that you have the right to decide which bands are "worthy" and which aren't! --Verdlanco (talk) 10:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no pretense about it. We're Wikipedia editors.  We do have the right to decide what is worthy of an entry in an encylopaedia. Uncle G 15:47, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)


 * As a group, we do decide, yes. That's what these voting pages are for.  But no single person (except probably Jimbo) has the right to refuse others to post articles about topics that interest them and potentially many others.  In particular, lack of "notability" or popularity has never been a valid criterion for deleting an article in Wikipedia, except when an expert on the topic deems the article pointless or unimportant.  And in the case of a musical band, who can claim to be such an expert and offer NPOV?  Can you?
 * Some people here seem to think that popularity is a measure of importance. I believe that those people may find it useful to browse through the Wikipedia rules.
 * --Verdlanco (talk) 19:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * and Britannica had better watch out for our enforcers if they do write an article that we don't approve :-) ... seriously though, Verdlanco, nobody has provided any evidence that they even are a garage band. They have claimed to have multiple records yet provide no locations or reviews (web or paper) they claim to do concerts, but can't provide locations or fliers, they claim to be non-technical yet they have multiple accounts on Wikipedia.. How do you know this is factual in the first place?  Notability is a disputed Wikipedia criteria.  Verifiability is policy.  There is not a single google hit for them (okay, they have one hit for this VFD).  Even if they are total technophobes, then my offer to help them get their content onto one of the creative commons sites stands.   Mozzerati 19:08, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)


 * I just don't think deletion of (alleged) facts is a productive way of verifying them.
 * --Verdlanco (talk) 19:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Just a note: there is no policy on reasons one may vote for deletion. A user can vote to delete for any reason, as long as the vote is in good faith. There is nothing wrong with voting based on notability. Tuf-Kat 22:09, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Besides correcting my error & apologizing in the summary, now that i've noticed this discussion i want to more visibly apologize to Verdlanco for my careless tagging of their vote as from a "new registered users". Over two months (& 90-some edits) exceeds that description. --Jerzy(t) 07:36, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted (and yes, I had already noticed it in the summary). Thank you.  But really, I am a relative newcomer in the English Wikipedia, and did not react to being placed on that list.  On the Esperanto Vikepedio, however, where I have over 700 edits, I might be slightly insulted if someone were to categorize me like that.  :-)
 * --Verdlanco (talk) 11:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)