Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy Kills

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 Speedy delete, non-notable band. Sockpuppets please go home. Ashibaka tock 19:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy Kills

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Vanity (although well written) about a band that does not pass WP:BAND as of yet. Google turns up a lot of unrelated stuff other than their MySpace page and such. Delete. Grandmasterka 04:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable band. Allmusic shows no relevant results. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 04:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, relationshipgonesourcruft --Deville (Talk) 04:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete This band has been a hit on my internet radio show the past month and finally we have information that gives us more of a insight on the band, I would hope that the people at Wikipedia can see this. --User:Davis0506 05:17,26 March 2006 (UTC)

  May one be so bold as to enquire which internet radio show that would be? --Deville (Talk) 05:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete I don't see anything wrong with this profile why be so harsh about it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.37.94.276 (talk • contribs).

  Comment, for the record, the above is the only edit ever made from 69.37.94.276 --Deville (Talk) 05:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, as far as I can tell, this doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE This is one of my favorite bands! Please do not delete this page as it is an excellent source of information on the band. Pinkpisces222
• Do Not Delete, We are fans and followers of this band and stand by the article as a whole. We tried to help edit the article today for the author and if there is something that needs to be change then we have no problems with that but to delete it seems to be a more personal issue with these users and not a fair action. We were to be making donations to this site but if this is how they will handle articles that we find relevant then we must reconsider since we thought this was a site based on information for those that wish to seek it not bias negative feedback from those who don't speak for us or the fans of this band. Fans of CK 05:45, 26 March 2006 No such user; comment actually by User:Controversy Kills.
  • If by "not a fair action" you mean "in accordance with well-established policies like WP:MUSIC and WP:V"... then you're right. Instead of expending energy making baseless accusations, please read Wikipedia policies and make your case accordingly. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• (m)(m) why delete it? let it be.
• Delete, maybe in a few years, it'll be notable :). Gflores ^Talk 06:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE I think it's a bit ridiculous that a site that is made to provide information for people would try to delete a band bio page that provides information for it's fans. I have seen other bios on this site and do not see that this bio is any less adequate to be left on the site. Furthermore why would you delete a webpage that provides information about Controversy Kills on the basis that when you "google" them you find no information. It only seem logical that in order to solve that oh so horrible problem that you would need to create pages like this one to provide the informaiton people are looking for. As far as I can tell, the only reason people have wanted this page deleted because they personally don't have a preference for the band. Although I'm sure it seems the world should revolve around their whims and desires, I just don't see that it is valid reasoning for deleting the page of band who is just trying to get their information out their for people to see.LOGIC No such user; comment actually by User:68.220.87.26.
  • Unfortunetly, we can't keep an article that asserts no nobility just for the sake of a few fans. If you really want to post information about your band on the internet, you could always go to MySpace--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 07:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE, Just because it's not notable to you doesnt mean it's not to us. This doesnt hurt you then why degrade as if it does? It helps the people that are interested in what it has to say to able to access it and to delete shows us that maybe this site isn't as notable as I thought it was since it can't provide information on something we are interested in knowing about. As per the person above that was going to make a donation but was rethinking that now, I side with them, since my family wanted to provide a donation to something that we once consider a vital site, we must know look to see this as a site that only wants to provide information that is of interest to them. I think to have anyone one person that is interested in information about this band is more enough reason to keep it. If this is so then I will make my familys donation. Thank you for your time. WesWill 06:29, 26 March 2006 No such user; comment actually by User:69.37.94.176; second recommendation by this user.
• DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!!! This is a great band, and deleting someone trying to further their career by spreading their image/information is rude and unnecessary. Everyone needs a chance, and how are they supposed to become relevant enough to pass WP:BAND if their profiles are deleted?!(UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.67.253.203 (talk • contribs).
• Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not for career promotion. First you get famous, then you get the article, not the other way round. Sandstein 07:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You keep posting your band comments and we are the ones that worked on it, not the band though we would had loved to get there insight on this article. Do we really need a thousand people to say the samething here? We love the site and we love the fact this article is on here. Why delete something we enjoy that brings no harm to you. If this how your editors work, then maybe they need to understand what is important to the some of the people who use this site and not just their own opinion of what is important. Why fight about this? Can't we just agree that some things are not for everyone but are important enough to have up for those of us who need it can come look at it here? Fans of CK 07:20, 26 March 2006

Don't Delete: Why be so harsh they are a good band trying to get their share of the wealth in this world.

• • • Don't delete this band. How are they ever supposed to get ahead if nobody will help them just a little bit? These things take a lot of time and a lot of effort, and deleting this will hurt them a lot more than keeping it will hurt you.***

• Comment: The sockpuppetry and ignoring of all rules by the anonymous/new editors is not helping their case. It borders on trolling. I hereby petition any administrator to consider early closure per WP:SNOW. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • And you say our user name doesnt exist? We are fans of CK whats wrong with saying that? This is starting to get crazy. What do you guys have against this band?Fans of CK or to make it clear for the person that finds a reason to "correct" everything we say ,our sign in name is controversy kills
• Speedy delete per Kinu. dbtfz^talk 07:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Your going to delete this no matter what we want and the staff is not being clear with whats really wrong with the article. They choose to try to make us look like fools for liking this band this much. So if thats what you are going to do then I guess it doesnt matter what we say.controversy kills

DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• Abrogate with prejudice (Bjorn Tipling 07:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC))
• Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, plain and simple. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 08:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Yes, it clearly fails WP:MUSIC. The article bleeds with the red ink of non-notable musicians. --Hyperbole 08:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I was tempted to vote delete solely because of the sock puppetry, but decided to read the article and do a Google search for it anyway. I think this band is not notable enough to have an article, and the sock puppetry isn't helping either. JIP | Talk 08:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable band. if they can't make it in the real world they can't make it here. doktorb | words 08:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article asserts notability namely tours of the US and Europe. However, the only site I could find using "Controversy Kills" tour outside the bands page was reference in the Connecticut Post in a Battle of the Bands competition. This band may well be notable in the future but doesn't meet our standards of notability as yet. Capitalistroadster 08:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Small band with one indie release, yet to gain notable status - WP:Music refers.  (aeropagitica)  09:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC, also the sock puppetry doesnt help their case either. -- Arnzy (Talk) 10:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Capitalistroadster. User:24.67.253.203's comment perhaps makes the strongest case for deletion, ironically. [1]. Regards —Encephalon 13:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete not notable ccwaters 13:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete not notable. The sockpuppetry here is disgusting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Per nn. When will people learn that sockpuppetry doesn't help in an AfD, it just pisses everyone off. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 18:46, 26 March 2006 (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.