Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Exchange*: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[The Exchange*]]: delete |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
*'''Delete''', I'm a band inclusionist, but this is a PoV rant with some info about a group. Where's the music? The shows? nn. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 02:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''', I'm a band inclusionist, but this is a PoV rant with some info about a group. Where's the music? The shows? nn. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 02:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete'''. Band vanity (as well as utterly POV boosterism). --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 03:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
*'''Delete'''. Band vanity (as well as utterly POV boosterism). --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 03:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
||
*Famous first, page second is the way it works. A desire to promote them so they don't "sink unnoticed into the deep waters that surround Indie rock" is not a reason for them to have a page. '''Delete''' this, if they become famous later then a page can be written. [[User:ShaneKing|Shane King]] 04:29, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 04:29, 5 January 2005
(Note: lengthy commentary moved to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/The Exchange*. If you have comments please put them there. If you want to vote please vote here. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC))
This band article lists one (short) album. They're "planning to tour extensively," their recordings "shine with potential," and most of the article comes from the band's web site. Best of luck, guys. For now, delete band vanity. Gazpacho 23:41, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: It isn't the job of Wikipedia to give unknown bands attention. DCEdwards1966 00:45, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
- I am not affiliated with The Exchange. They are start-up musicians. Please, keep. Jamirus99 01:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I believe Jamirus99 has a point, keep StrYkEr963 02:19, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC).
- Having read what has been said, keep. DragonAvatar 02:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, however why is there an asterisk in the title? The article says the asterisk was only used on a certain webpage to differentiate the band from another with a similar name. I don't see a reason for it to be used here, so recommend the title be corrected. It should also be reworked to removed POV, and if this is quoted verbatim from a Website, then this becomes a copyvio issue. 23skidoo 02:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, I'm a band inclusionist, but this is a PoV rant with some info about a group. Where's the music? The shows? nn. Wyss 02:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Band vanity (as well as utterly POV boosterism). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Famous first, page second is the way it works. A desire to promote them so they don't "sink unnoticed into the deep waters that surround Indie rock" is not a reason for them to have a page. Delete this, if they become famous later then a page can be written. Shane King 04:29, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)