Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Wide Music

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 was delete. Sango123 02:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open Wide Music

non-notable band, does not meet criteria of WP:MUSIC - one independent release and a MySpace page. Stormie 02:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

-- After reviewing more documentation on Wikipedia, I believe I may have been in error when I posted the article. While the band has a fan base in the Greater Toronto Area and on the Internet, they may not not have had enough commercial success to warrant a Wikipedia article as of yet. The question is however: how many independent releases does a band need before they are immortalized with a Wikipedia page. In the history of music, there have been many bands which were obscure at the time that they were regularly performing.

Perhaps articles on independant bands who have had some commericial success but are largely unknown would be better suited to the proposed WikiMusic [1] site.

I don't agree with the argument that a band with a MySpace profile is irrelevant. Many bands have profiles on the site because MySpace is inherently useful for promoting entertainers.

I don't have any control over whether my article stays or goes but I think it deserves posting in some sort of wiki-form somewhere. I posted the article because I know they had a large fan base and because I have heard instrumental tracks from their second album.

Thanks Stormie for opening my eyes a bit. I'm gonna read some more documentation before I do much else.

Codus 02:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No harm done, Codus. I do not think that Stormie was saying that having a MySpace profile makes a band irrelevant. What Stormie was saying is that having a MySpace profile does not automatically make a band relevant. If this band all of a sudden becomes popular outside of one small area, by all means make a Wikipedia article about it. Until then, though I am going to have to maintain my vote of delete. --דניאל ^{talk contribs Email} 03:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm going to have to agree. --Chris Griswold 06:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No assertion or proof otherwise of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Ryanminier 17:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a ton of irrelevant articles on people with little or no notability. Search "independent musician" for comprehensive list. Asserting the notability of independent musicians seems like an exercise in futility. Most independent musicians with limited success are known only in their community. I don't have anything to lose from the article's deletion (other than time wasted), nor do I have anything to gain from it's acceptance. I wrote the article because I know the band has a following both in the GTA and on the Internet and therefore the likelihood that someone might search for information on the band on Wikipedia was good. It really is too bad that Wikipedia does not aim to collect information on all subjects, regardless of their overall relevance to the global community. Despite committment to notability, many wikipedia articles exist which list information about very obscure people.

Open Wide Music, like many artists in Canada, have yet to find commericial success on the scale comparible with American market, but they are not obscure in the culture of their city. In fact most Canadians bands are not well known until they break into the American market. Their lack of popularity outside their primary geographic location doesn't make them any less relevant to their fans. The only reason I am arguing for my article to stay is because I believe the band will generate a lot more fans upon the release of their second album which is likely going to be released in 2006. Once the band has a second independent release will they qualify for notability? Thanks for the taking time to participate in the discussion. Codus 19:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Also, no reliable sources given. Wickethewok 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Everyone except Danielrocks has barely commented other to say "Delete it". This isn't discussion. It's a witchhunt for pages that don't interest you. I'm starting to feel very unwelcome in the Wikipedian community since no one is taking the time to discuss the issues I've raised above. I came here to discuss the issue because this is a discussion page yet there is very little actual discussion going on. 21:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codus (talk • contribs)

Comment. Codus, nobody wants you to feel unwelcome. I believe that I speak on behalf of the entire Wikipedia community when I ask you to continue editing. However, Open Wide Music clearly does not merit a Wikipedia page. Generally, editors do not write long paragraphs on AfD discussions. Rather, they write whether they feel it should be kept or deleted and briefly explain their opinion. In addition, AfD is not a witchhunt for pages that do not interest us. This is how we decide what pages deserve Wikipedia articles. Don't be discouraged because this article will be deleted. Instead, try working on other articles. Once you get the hang of Wikipedia, you'll be less likely to make the same mistake. --דניאל ~~ Danielrocks123 ^{talk contribs Email} 21:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:MUSIC is the guideline for whether or not a band is notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Usually the most relevant parts of it for independent bands are nationwide touring, album release on notable indie or major labels, or being featured multiple times in the media. A lot of bands end up in AfD discussions, and most are deleted based on these guidelines. I haven't heard of any the bands so far that I have seen in AfD, yet I vote "keep" on any that meet any one guideline of WP:MUSIC. Recreate the article when the band does tour Canada or has two albums on a significant label, and I'll certainly support keeping it. And I agree with Danielrocks - hang in there and write about what you know. --Joelmills 02:22, 12 August 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.