Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosthetic Records: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:28, 11 December 2005

Prosthetic Records

The article is obviously spam/vandalism Mecanismo 00:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It should be speedy. Who's idea was it to restrict speedy deletions so that this sort of thing cannot be labelled as {{db-spam}}? Tell me, that I may strangle them. These nominations are a waste of everyone's time. Reyk 02:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam. V. Alex Brennen 03:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is far from a speedy or vandalism(!). It's not spam, it's a valid stub. It's just their address and a list of their bands, with no claims or boasts made. It doesn't even give their web site. Some of those bands are notable -- Even I recognized Lamb of God (band) which has six records out and a Wikipedia article. All That Remains has an article. I don't know if the others do -- I checked some but not all, not finding any more articles (which doesn't prove a band is not notable). Prosthetic Records gets a lot Google hits, too. I don't know what the policy or precedent is on record labels, so I'm not going to vote, but its an artistic endeavor so I'd tend to give the benefit of the doubt. I'm gonna leave it to others who are more familiar with this sort of thing, though. (I do note that nominator also just nominated Lowell High School for AfD resulting in a speedy keep.) Herostratus 07:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not spam; it is blatant spam. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 12:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mike Rosoft. Ifnord 17:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that any comments before this one, do not reflect the article as rewritten by Pburka. Please don't count them when closing. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I've rewritten it more in the style of Wikipedia, but there was nothing in the original article which merited deletion. Pburka 17:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rewrite, it looks like a perfectly fine stub now. Snurks ^{T C} 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's definitely a notable label, and the rewrite makes it a reasonable stub for Wikipedia. peachlette 21:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough Spearhead 23:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no more or less notable than many of the other 200 or so record label stubs. --Condorman 23:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 *This is not spam; it is blatant spam. <b>Delete</b> unless rewritten. - [[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]] 12:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' per [[User:Mike Rosoft|Mike Rosoft]]. [[User:Ifnord|Ifnord]] 17:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
+----
+'''Please note that any comments before this one, do not reflect the article as rewritten by Pburka. Please don't count them when closing.''' - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 00:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
+----
 *'''Strong Keep'''. I've rewritten it more in the style of Wikipedia, but there was nothing in the original article which merited deletion. [[User:Pburka|Pburka]] 17:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' per rewrite, it looks like a perfectly fine stub now.  <font color="orange" face="georgia">[[User:Snurks|Snurks]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Snurks|T]] [[Special:Contributions/Snurks|C]]</sup></small></font> 19:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)