Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wiked Wood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. 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. Postdlf 05:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wiked Wood

[edit]

non notability - ad Melaen 00:08, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nothing but puffery. Not surprisingly, no AMG entry. Postdlf 00:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I made the page Neutral-Point-of-View, so it's more "factual". However, it seems to be one of those "high school bands" as I'd call it, since their official site is Tripod. MessedRocker 00:14, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The original author also modified horrorcore to add a list of bands (including Wiked Wood and Playaz Lounge Crew, both on VfD today) of which none appear on AMG (the change has since been reverted). --Dachannien 00:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The fact that someone so obviously intimate with the band has so little to say about them suggests how non notable this entry is -Phantym 04:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Leave Article. Wiked Wood is a well known underground horrorcore group in Philidalphia, PA. I was actually the one that put them up with a bunch of other great underground acts from this genre. Someone did not look up their facts right about Wiked Wood, because if they had they would know that Wiked Wood has a huge fanbase and also is shown love by horrorcore fan sites such as www.realjuggalettes.com, www.hallsofillusions.com, faygoluvers.net and many others! Playaz Lounge Crew is actually in the underground psychos contest held by Psychopathic Records and is considered to be the top contender and on their way to becoming one of the biggest things in horrorcore! The other groups I listed in the horrorcore section, also all have successful careers. Don't let the age of these youngsters fool you! These guys are the real deal! With or without being in the AMG! Horrorcore is about being underground! I am out!!!!! Peace! And have respect... (preceding unsigned comment by  69.248.177.100 04:44, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)) (according to edit history. Uncle G 15:19, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC))
  • Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 18 Google hits? That suggests the facts aren't worth looking up. Too obscure and non-influential to be worth an article. Average Earthman 06:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Band vanity. A fifteen year old and a thirteen year old well known underground in Philly? Not likely. --bainer (talk) 08:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • A 15-year-old and a 13-year-old who have been performing together since 2002. I shudder to think of a 10-year-old rapper. RickK 19:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Mild Keep While I wonder why something self-described as "underground" could have an entry anywhere as anything other than historical or sociological note, this is a group with it's own web site and following. So what if I've never heard of them and never would - this is not a paper encyclopedia and not restricted to what lots of people know. As to "notable" - I've seen it said that something is notable if it's in Wikipedia and it is here so it is notable: i.e. it requires a better reason than "not notable" to be removed.-Snorre/Antwelm 14:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment OK, a lot of pages gets deleted for `band vanity`. Please tell me whats the go with U2 then ? Im not a band player, nor a fan. Lets give these kids a go, as long as the articles are not NPOV etc.. -Snorre/Antwelm 14:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. Uh... U2 is a multiplatinum-selling band that's been around in the global music scene for decades, frequently selling out venues on their tours. Are you implying that their track record is in any way on the same level as these amateur "rappers"? jglc | t | c 16:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Please review WP:MUSIC. The band needs to meet those criteria. RickK 19:35, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • something is notable if it's in Wikipedia — That's a faulty circular definition that most Wikipedia editors realize to be faulty. Uncle G 15:42, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Keep. Other paper encyclopedias would have this as a foot note as best, with an online encyclopedia devoted to being as broad ("all human knowledge" - Jimbo Wales) as is possible I see little reason why this could not have it's own article. --ShaunMacPherson 12:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. This doesn't require a better reason than non-notability, as Wikipedia is in the business of putting factual information out on important events, phenomenon, etc. If these guys are good, they'll probably make it big in a few years, and then they'll get an article. Until then, however, this article is likely to be of little use to anyone. --Scimitar 13:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:VAIN and/or lack of WP:MUSIC. Radiant_>|< 13:13, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • ``Keep``` Non-notable? Defined by people who haven`t heard of them? I wouldn`t have if it wasn`t for this vote. Lets keep it, so that when/if they get _big_ we already had something on them. PS: Something should be done with the history section though; Still sounds like rambling. -Snorre/Antwelm 13:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This user's second vote on this topic.
    • If the band becomes significant, then it will merit an article. Wikipedia deals with what is known now, not what may be. I don't get an article just because, some day, I may be the president. The same is true of start-up bands that haven't actually achieved anything yet. Uncle G 15:42, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete Band vanity and nn --Lord Voldemort 13:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 100% KEEP!!! Just like Insane Clown Posse and Twiztid this group deserves the same amount of exposure! This encyclopedia covers everything so why should underground acts not be kept! I looked Wiked Wood up and indeed there fan base big! They are not just a "highshool" band!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.43.67.130 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC) (according to edit history. Uncle G 15:19, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC))
Google: "Wiked Wood", results: 16 pages found. When I took out all the pages that were just different sections of their official site, I got 5. Wow. Five. Big fan base there. And by the way, you used the wrong "there" in your comment. You should have used "their." Matjlav 20:01, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. it's all legit ive been a bunch a juggalo sites and they have a link in just bout all of them. they have solid fan base in philly which I can prove since im a fan myself [female dog]! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.43.67.130 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC) (according to edit history. This user's second vote. Uncle G 15:19, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)) (Refactored comment in brackets that could be construed as a personal attack.)
  • Keep. Some of the best music does not have to be in the AMG guide allot of it is "underground". So, their official site is published by Tripod (so what???!!!) they still own a domai name and their fanbase is a high quanity checked (hallsofillusions.com) a fansite for this genre and indeed they were listed as being a "real" group. All in all this is an encyclopedia covering everthything just becuase you may not know exacly who these kids are does not mean you can say nobody else does! Just as big as Jumpsteady in my mind and Jumpsteady does not even have a site!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.43.67.130 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC) (according to edit history. This user's third vote. Uncle G 15:19, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC))
  • No evidence that this band meets the WP:MUSIC criteria. Delete. Uncle G 15:42, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete --Xcali 15:53, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete; I'm a big hip-hop fan, located in northern Delaware, and I follow the local scene. These guys are utterly and wholly unnotable. jglc | t | c 16:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Generally, notable bands aren't defended by sock puppets, because a) more than one real person cares about them, and b) sock-puppets have a low life-expectancy, and burn in wiki-hell when they die. --Scimitar 17:32, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lord Voldemort. --FCYTravis 18:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: The fury with which these folks are fighting speaks eloquently for their not having any notability. I don't think that U2 would care if they were mentioned here, because they're well known. On the other hand, fictional and desperately feeble bands scream bloody murder over any possibility of a delete vote. The reason is that they're using Wikipedia for advertising, which, of course, is against the deletion policy. This isn't even to get to the issues of verifiability or notability. Geogre 18:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Delete per Lord Voldemort and Geogre. The copious amounts of slang used in the article makes it feel somewhat suspicious to me too. Scott5114 19:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, scokpuppet limit has been exceeded. RickK 19:32, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, and a surplus of anons. --Carnildo 21:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC, sockpuppet parade. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 22:04, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of discography or anything that shows compliance with Wikimusic project guidelines. Capitalistroadster 22:37, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, although this edition of sockpuppet theater has been entertaining. -- BD2412 talk 23:07, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
  • Delete Do we need every damn rap "music" group from podunk's bio here? No! Hohokus 23:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Here's a simple rule: if a band has no mass media exposure, is formed by non-notable musicians, and is only a couple of years old, it's obviously not notable. No, I take that back -- it's not a question of notability. It's a question of HTF are we supposed to keep track of the thousands of minor bands that are born every single year? ----Isaac R 02:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Definitely looks like a very amateur garage band not worth noting on a worldwide encyclopaedia... Matjlav 02:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Matjlav its just vanity. Falphin 01:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delte Anon IP has voted wayyy more than once, probably sock-puppets involved and nothing to even show it has notability. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 06:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, bandcruft. Alphax τεχ 11:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • DeleteNo music or lyrics released ("We do not make lyrics available 4 the public." from their website), not notable on the "scene", no awards, no indication that even their friends have listened to their music. Best of luck to them. If they actually do release something some day, they can come back and create a new page! --Habap 18:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wiked_Wood&oldid=1138723320"