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. Majorly (hot!) 16:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumatic Detach[edit]

Pneumatic Detach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

no indication that it passes WP:MUSIC. Autobiographical. ccwaters 00:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears to be notable. Xanucia 22:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete no notability according to the criteria by WP:MUSIC Iyenweyel 06:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to be updated with valid sources. 11:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.65.66 (talk • contribs)

*Keep Reasons to keep article: Falls under the "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." With reviews/ interviews in many of the top industrial magazines/zines. As well as "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." With 5 releases on the notable Hive Records. 11:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.65.66 (talk • contribs)

• • Comment': notice two separate comments by the same IP which also happens to have similar edit histories as Ppudate. Anyway, please direct us to these unnamed articles. ccwaters 17:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • comment: first comment was made about six months ago due to a previous delete opinion. Second comment made due to this one. I Wasn't actually attempting to vote twice. Ppudate 06:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You may only vote once. Rockstar915 19:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. No one made a comment about Ppudate. It was only about the IP's multiple votes. Rockstar915 01:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Reasons to keep article: Discogs article states notable history and release history (http://www.discogs.com/artist/Pneumatic+Detach) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.65.66 (talk • contribs)

• Keep Reasons to keep article: Artist is noted under the power noise genre article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powernoise) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.173.1.75 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: This is said IP address's first edit in en.wiki ccwaters 17:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We should probably do a check user. This all smells of sock puppetry. Rockstar915 19:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Does fit the criteria. Other problems with article have been corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ppudate (talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC). — Ppudate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep Reasons to keep article: Pneumatic Detach performed 2 years as a headling act at Notable North American electronic music festival C.O.M.A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.O.M.A.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.65.66 (talk • contribs)

• Comment. You can only vote once. Rockstar915 19:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strong delete. I checked on LexisNexis, google and nothing notable has been written about this band. Discogs is not a notable source, as anyone can add their releases to the site. So by nature the article fails WP:A. The articles cited are trivial. Furthermore, Hive Records is not a notable record label, so the band does not fit criteria #4 of WP:MUSIC. Essentially, it just fails every other aspect of WP:MUSIC. All all this not to mention that this AfD has been vandalized into oblivion. Rockstar915 19:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment #1 if we are uncertain of C.O.M.A.'s validity then why is there a Wiki article about it? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.O.M.A.) #2 if discogs is not a valid source why is it listed as a resource under WP:MUSIC. #3 if the pneumatic detach wiki article is not note worthy why has it been a Wiki article since 01:41, 28 May 2006 with many contributors? 08:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.65.66 (talk • contribs)

• Comment. a) C.O.M.A. does not have an article, per your link. b) Discogs is a good place to check validity of record labels, etc. It is not a reliable secondary source, as anyone can add their album information, thus making it a primary source. c) there is no relationship between time on Wikipedia and notability. By all counts, this article fails WP:MUSIC. Rockstar915 15:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It turns out that C.O.M.A. does have an article. The wrong link was added. However, please show me where playing in a festival, notable or not, fits unter WP:MUSIC. Rockstar915 16:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Would you mind telling me why in WP:MUSIC it states "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted;" and User:Ccwaters has commented on the article before and was Ok with it, nothing has really changed about except some small facts but now there is a problem? In addition there are many other "artists" in wikipedia with much less credability and yet you are targeting this article? if there is a problem here you need to do some reviewing of other similar articles. 02:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.65.66 (talk • contribs)

• COMMENT My silence doesn't mean I've changed my mind. Its great that you FINALLY have references, but you ignored 2-3 past requests for them. It took the threat of deletion for you to produce them. As far as the criteria at WP:MUSIC the only one that this article MIGHT PASS is the label one: is HIVE a notable label? I don't know. The criterium are only guidelines, but that fact that this article meets only one as a borderline maybe and that the article is largely autobiographical says a lot. BTW pointing out other articles that should be deleted is no way to justify you own. With that said, I'll be quiet and let others chime in. ccwaters 22:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Thanks for the comment. Per my research, Hive Records is not a notable label. Pneumatic Detach is the only band on the label with a Wikipedia page, and none of the artists have any reliable sources written about them. I'm still waiting for some non-trivial sources or some other reason why this band might pass WP:MUSIC. Rockstar915 23:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In addition I feel this article should stay because it falls under WP:MUSIC "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. Examples are (http://www.industrialnation.com), and many online magazines. I can list more if you need them.

http://www.side-line.com/news_comments.php?id=8335_0_2_0_C http://www.regenmag.com/Reviews-521-Pneumatic-Detach-viscera.html http://www.virus-mag.com/index.php?a=3729 http://www.pneumaticdetach.com/press.htm http://www.yip.org/squid/reviews/pneumaticdetach/viscera.htm

"02:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.65.66 (talk • contribs) 

• Comment. Per my research, all of the above are trivial sources. Rockstar915 21:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided (currently) - I am not famililar with the area but there are alot of CD compilations listed on the site. Also, how signiifcant is this C.O.M.A. festival - anyone here from Montreal? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Playing in a festival does not fulfill WP:MUSIC. Rockstar915 16:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only criteria of WP:MUSIC that this band might pass is the label. I have a feeling Hive Records is not notable, but that's another discussion. It fails the other 10 criteria out right. The article is overwhelmingly autobiographical and the newly added references are questionable (some primary). This is the only comment I'll make on this AFD. I challenge the author to do the same: make your statement and then let others contribute. There is no need to rebut EVERYONE'S comments. If the article is truly worthy then others will show their support to keep it. AND DO NOT PROCLAIM, like you did before, that my silence afterwards signifies a change in my stance. Thanks. ccwaters 13:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Only appearance in Google News Archive is in a festival listing -- a festival which itself fails to garner any more results.--Dhartung | Talk 13:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep for various reasons listed by "keepers" throughout discussion. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs) just opined "strong keep" in 27 AFD discussions over a period of 35 minutes, several times with clearly disruptive rationales. Uncle G 16:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can you please expand on your reasoning or how this group fulfills WP:MUSIC? Every keep reason given was, as far as I'm concerned, addressed. Rockstar915 18:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems like a useful article and someone went through the trouble of keeping it, so I just want help out a fellow article-creating Wikipedian. --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 20:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? has been blocked for sockpuppetry and for disruptive edits. Rockstar915 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:MUSIC. --RaiderAspect 06:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.