Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ravaged

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Ravaged was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. 9 votes to delete, 1 vote to keep. 1 vote was disregarded because unsigned. Postdlf 07:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Ravaged[edit]

I have never heard of them, but if they are recording and have created a new genre, then I think it should stay. Hey, everyone has to start somewhere! And if a local is saying that they do have a following and an ER that's actually being sold places, then why not keep the entry? The definition of notable is very semantical.

Band-Vanity, maybe they become notable after releasing their debut album -- Ferkelparade π 12:26, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NOTE: if this article is deleted, the article for their album At last..., created by the same IP as the creator of the article for The Ravaged, should also be deleted. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:33, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
REVISED NOTE: Just about every contribution by the ip address [1] is about members of The Ravaged. I think that if the article for The Ravaged is deleted, Power Heavy Rock N' Roll, Gus Nilson, Nickie Hanson, Chris Erixon, Rob Gillard, and Pete Ellstrom should also be deleted. Also, his links to the ravaged homepage from Guitarist and Bassist should also be removed. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:38, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I suspected as much and asked about them at the reference desk. Until someone has compelling arguments to the opposite either here or at the reference desk my vote is for delete. The fate of Nickie Hanson, Rob Gillard, Gus Nilson, Pete Ellstrom (and Chris Erixon which will no doubt be created any minute now) should be the same as the main article. --fvw 12:30, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
  • Keep: As a fan of Ravaged and quite familiar with their work, I can tell you that the band in fact HAS released a CD, their EP. And while it is not a full-length album, the record has and is being sold in various places in several cities in Sweden. They're not a big band, but they do have their share of fans. Also, I have made quite a lot of changes to the article, I uploaded the pictures on the The Ravaged and the Rob Gillard articles, and I'm sure there will be other fans contributing as soon as they find out that there is a Wikipedia entry on the band. I vote against deletion --Bong 13:09, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Account has <50 contributions, all but two in the last week. Isomorphic 23:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete- In order for the page to not be vanity, the subject has to be substantially notable. At this point in time, I don't believe that this band qualifies any more than every other band in the world that just got a recording contract. Users who are in favor of letting every band have an entry on Wikipedia may vote to the contrary, but I am not in favor, so I must vote to delete. Skyler 13:43, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Any entity in the encyclopedia needs to be notable, and the information has to be verifiable. In the case of bands, that means that the group needs to be known outside of its home area. One way we measure that is with either substantial influence on notable bands (e.g. Alex Chilton has been recording on minor labels, but he has and continues to influence bands like REM and The Replacements) or by sales that are widespread. Since we're not a record guide or a band guide, we have to confine ourselves only to the high profile acts. Minor independent label releases, ep's, and local performances won't fit the criteria. Geogre 14:59, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable (yet?) Nadavspi 15:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: promo, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:31, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- not notable yet, but maybe with their next CD? Some retentionists advocate keeping high-school bands, which sucks. This band isn't too far shy of my qualifications of notability. --Improv 20:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Well, it doesn't really matter if the page stays or not, becuase they got what they wanted. More people that know who they are and more people that will be interested in their next CD. Why am I against delete? OK, this is not a promo site, but who did this page? Themselves or a fan of the band?? I think it's a fan and that's reason enough to let the page stay.
Just FYI, your vote cannot be considered if it is anonymous. However, I will leave your comments for consideration, but please don't use CAPS. It is considered to be obnoxious or shouting. Skyler1534 22:41, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, I can't see this becoming encyclopedic yet siroχo 10:00, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable. As it stands, this is simply pagerank spam. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:39, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.