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 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Glow[edit]

Non-notable cover band with no major label releases. Article is full of POV from a possible COI editor and has a history section that reads like some kind of whodunit novel. Google search for "Eastern Glow" is artificially inflated by results from a song with the same name included in the soundtrack of a well-known TV show; however, the song has no relation to the band. GlassCobra 04:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability as per WP:Band.I feel like a tourist (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I feel like a tourist (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N, completely unsourced other than a myspace page and (even if the band somehow did pass WP:Band) appears unsalvageable in its current form. — iridescent 12:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep- this is an article that needs improvement, true, but I think that this article has a chance. (Note: I am and have been involved with rewriting and improving the article) Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC) After seeing what's going on here, delete. I'm sorry, but since I can't really source it, there's no way to keep improving the article. Plus, the discussion at the bottom just makes my brain hurt. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got any sources to indicate any kind of notability? GlassCobra 02:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This is my first article, and I think it deserves a chance, just like any other page that is on this site. It might not have a lot of references, but that is because it is a local band, not some big-time labeled band that makes millions of dollars from album sales....yet. Give it a few years. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the myspace test. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
How many sourced, notable article subjects have MySpace pages? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Did you read that page at all? I'm sure plenty of other article subjects have myspace pages but few that are notable use it as a main online home. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Once again, I must point out that this is a "Local Band" not some big-time corporation band that has web-sites all over the internet. I want this page to last, and that is coming from someone who spent a lot of time trying to write this whole thing and than having Nwwaew revise it for me. I appreciate his help and it is sad that some people want to take that work away. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Please read WP:BAND and see if you honestly believe this band passes; if you feel they do, it's down to you (and anyone else who wants the page kept) to demonstrate they do. Wikipedia is not a directory of bands — that's precisely what Myspace is for. — iridescent 22:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Ok, do you honestly think that a local band would have been nominated for a Grammy? That is what it takes to get onto Wikipedia for a band? That is the most blotted piece of BS I have ever read. I take the time to add something onto a "Free Encyclopedia" and than you guys want to take it off, what is "Free" about that? People go around re-writing pages and make them look bad, and yet they can post a page about something and get it on here. I seriously wanted this page to be on here, and I would have done anything to keep it on here. But it looks like you guys aren't going to let me anyways. Why? Why must an organization that is on the internet want to kick off one little page that probably won't get looked at that much, besides fans of the band? Why must a big corporation try and stop the publicity of a small little band that just wants to be known? I am trying to help these guys out, sure we have "Myspace", but Myspace only cares about Chart Topping artists, and won't show off some small up and coming band from Chicago. Why can't you just let it stay, these guys have great potential and I believe that they can make it, so if they do, you guys would have to make a page about it anyways, so why even bother deleting it now? Why can't you just leave it alone? --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DIRECTORY OF BANDS OR A FREE WEBHOST and we have those notability guidelines for a reason! If you think any article deserves to stay it's down to you to defend it; we'd delete George Bush if he didn't have two mentions in major news sources. — iridescent 23:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] But Why can't there be exceptions, I am sure George Bush would make you guys have a page about him, he is the President. I want this page on here, and I am defending it, because it is unjust that because a page with low-standard sources should be deleted, if any other web-site such as Myspace would do that, we would have been deleted a long time ago. Once again, it is the internet, people already think that you have bad info anyways. Why can't there be a page where it has full-proof information but not huge sources such as a web-site, trust me if Eastern Glow had a web-site, I wouldn't have made a page on here in the first place. But Eastern Glow has not reached a level of importance to have a web-site yet. So I tried to get it on too here and I thought it would be fun to see it on here. Maybe than they would get recognition and move to the web-site status. Can the page at least stay until a web-site is worked out? --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] I have searched for sources in Google News archives, and also in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. I found not a single one. Delete if no third-party sources turn up by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] I would also like to add that Wikipedia has a page on "Big Foot" and yet he has not had confirmation of existance, so why shouldn't that page get deleted? --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] I'm not quite sure at this point if you are just making jokes, but I'll assume you are being serious. You appear to misunderstand the purpose of an encyclopedia as a collection of secondary sources. Whether a subject exists or not does not matter; what matters is whether the subject has been written about in multiple independent sources such as newspapers, journals and books. In other words, the world has "taken note"—that is what we mean by notability. (Take a look at this essay for a longer explanation.) If you take a look at the footnotes of the Bigfoot article you will see they are extensive: the world has "taken note" of the subject. So far, that appears not to be the case with Eastern Glow. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not intended to be used as a tool to promote up-and-coming bands, and, along the same lines, is not a free webhost (as Iridescent has already said). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] If Wikipedia is not a free webhost, why do you allow people to post and/or edit pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Les Paul Maniac (talk • contribs) 11:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but that does not mean that "anything goes" (we still ask that contributors adhere to the established policies). Letting anyone edit helps to encourage as large and diverse as possible a base of volunteer editors, something that sets it apart from other encyclopedias. See more about this at Wikipedia:About#Strengths, weaknesses, and article quality in Wikipedia. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] And yet people still edit pages and make it look like crap. All I am asking is that my page stays, there isn't anything wrong with it, and it makes no negative remarks towards anything, it is just about a band. That is all that I am asking, Please let my page stay. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] If you see pages that look like crap, please feel free to fix them. GlassCobra 05:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] It is not your page. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] It might not be officially my page, but I am sure the members of Eastern Glow believe it is their own page and would be saddened if it was deleted, I worked hard to add all of that info, and the great thing about bands are that information keeps coming and I can continue to make the page grow. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Which is what Myspace is for. Wikipedia has a very specific purpose and it's not a directory of bands. Please read some of the policies everyone above is advising you to read before you continue to work on this article. — iridescent 15:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] If you have such strict rules and policies, which I have read, why do you allow people such as myself to even put up a page, I can't always update a myspace, or else the page would be huge, and that it is why here on Wikipedia I like the different sections that can be created. I will continue the work on this page, which I have asked even earlier that if it could stay until a web-site specifically about Eastern Glow was put up, but no one answered it. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] We have been repeatedly answering your question: No, it cannot stay, in the absence of any evidence of notability, because Wikipedia is not a free webhost. "Anyone can edit" does not mean "anything goes". When someone, such as yourself, begins editing in a way that is not in keeping with our policies, we point them to those policies and ask that they follow them. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] But what am I doing wrong, if I made a page making fun of something and brining a negative wave than I would surely allow it to be deleted, but that isn't that case, the policies of Wikipedia being an Encyclopedia, where it contains information that is of interest to some people, than it should be allowed to make a page about a band that is well known through out the Chicago suburbs. There is no good reason why this page should be deleted, it is a justified page and deserves to be on Wikipedia, I respect this site enough to put a page up myself, not waiting for some reporter to do it for me, I do my own work, and it took me a long time to get enough information to make this page. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] ←This is getting ridiculous. If you continue wilfully refusing to read the pages you're being repeatedly advised to read, I'm going to treat you as a disruptive editor. You are very welcome to post in this discussion - or any other part of Wikipedia - but not if you refuse to work with anyone else. — iridescent 20:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Didn't I just say I read those pages? I am sticking to what I think is right, and you are just presenting stuff over and over again, I get your point, but what is so bad about my page? --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Read WP:BAND again, then come back and tell us specifically which of the criteria you think this band meets and why. If you can't answer that question, then please don't post again in this thread until you can answer it. — iridescent 20:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

- How many sourced, notable article subjects have MySpace pages? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you read that page at all? I'm sure plenty of other article subjects have myspace pages but few that are notable use it as a main online home. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Once again, I must point out that this is a "Local Band" not some big-time corporation band that has web-sites all over the internet. I want this page to last, and that is coming from someone who spent a lot of time trying to write this whole thing and than having Nwwaew revise it for me. I appreciate his help and it is sad that some people want to take that work away. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please read WP:BAND and see if you honestly believe this band passes; if you feel they do, it's down to you (and anyone else who wants the page kept) to demonstrate they do. Wikipedia is not a directory of bands — that's precisely what Myspace is for. — iridescent 22:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, do you honestly think that a local band would have been nominated for a Grammy? That is what it takes to get onto Wikipedia for a band? That is the most blotted piece of BS I have ever read. I take the time to add something onto a "Free Encyclopedia" and than you guys want to take it off, what is "Free" about that? People go around re-writing pages and make them look bad, and yet they can post a page about something and get it on here. I seriously wanted this page to be on here, and I would have done anything to keep it on here. But it looks like you guys aren't going to let me anyways. Why? Why must an organization that is on the internet want to kick off one little page that probably won't get looked at that much, besides fans of the band? Why must a big corporation try and stop the publicity of a small little band that just wants to be known? I am trying to help these guys out, sure we have "Myspace", but Myspace only cares about Chart Topping artists, and won't show off some small up and coming band from Chicago. Why can't you just let it stay, these guys have great potential and I believe that they can make it, so if they do, you guys would have to make a page about it anyways, so why even bother deleting it now? Why can't you just leave it alone? --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DIRECTORY OF BANDS OR A FREE WEBHOST and we have those notability guidelines for a reason! If you think any article deserves to stay it's down to you to defend it; we'd delete George Bush if he didn't have two mentions in major news sources. — iridescent 23:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But Why can't there be exceptions, I am sure George Bush would make you guys have a page about him, he is the President. I want this page on here, and I am defending it, because it is unjust that because a page with low-standard sources should be deleted, if any other web-site such as Myspace would do that, we would have been deleted a long time ago. Once again, it is the internet, people already think that you have bad info anyways. Why can't there be a page where it has full-proof information but not huge sources such as a web-site, trust me if Eastern Glow had a web-site, I wouldn't have made a page on here in the first place. But Eastern Glow has not reached a level of importance to have a web-site yet. So I tried to get it on too here and I thought it would be fun to see it on here. Maybe than they would get recognition and move to the web-site status. Can the page at least stay until a web-site is worked out? --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched for sources in Google News archives, and also in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. I found not a single one. Delete if no third-party sources turn up by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that Wikipedia has a page on "Big Foot" and yet he has not had confirmation of existance, so why shouldn't that page get deleted? --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite sure at this point if you are just making jokes, but I'll assume you are being serious. You appear to misunderstand the purpose of an encyclopedia as a collection of secondary sources. Whether a subject exists or not does not matter; what matters is whether the subject has been written about in multiple independent sources such as newspapers, journals and books. In other words, the world has "taken note"—that is what we mean by notability. (Take a look at this essay for a longer explanation.) If you take a look at the footnotes of the Bigfoot article you will see they are extensive: the world has "taken note" of the subject. So far, that appears not to be the case with Eastern Glow. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not intended to be used as a tool to promote up-and-coming bands, and, along the same lines, is not a free webhost (as Iridescent has already said). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If Wikipedia is not a free webhost, why do you allow people to post and/or edit pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Les Paul Maniac (talk • contribs) 11:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but that does not mean that "anything goes" (we still ask that contributors adhere to the established policies). Letting anyone edit helps to encourage as large and diverse as possible a base of volunteer editors, something that sets it apart from other encyclopedias. See more about this at Wikipedia:About#Strengths, weaknesses, and article quality in Wikipedia. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - And yet people still edit pages and make it look like crap. All I am asking is that my page stays, there isn't anything wrong with it, and it makes no negative remarks towards anything, it is just about a band. That is all that I am asking, Please let my page stay. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you see pages that look like crap, please feel free to fix them. GlassCobra 05:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It is not your page. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It might not be officially my page, but I am sure the members of Eastern Glow believe it is their own page and would be saddened if it was deleted, I worked hard to add all of that info, and the great thing about bands are that information keeps coming and I can continue to make the page grow. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which is what Myspace is for. Wikipedia has a very specific purpose and it's not a directory of bands. Please read some of the policies everyone above is advising you to read before you continue to work on this article. — iridescent 15:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you have such strict rules and policies, which I have read, why do you allow people such as myself to even put up a page, I can't always update a myspace, or else the page would be huge, and that it is why here on Wikipedia I like the different sections that can be created. I will continue the work on this page, which I have asked even earlier that if it could stay until a web-site specifically about Eastern Glow was put up, but no one answered it. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We have been repeatedly answering your question: No, it cannot stay, in the absence of any evidence of notability, because Wikipedia is not a free webhost. "Anyone can edit" does not mean "anything goes". When someone, such as yourself, begins editing in a way that is not in keeping with our policies, we point them to those policies and ask that they follow them. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        But what am I doing wrong, if I made a page making fun of something and brining a negative wave than I would surely allow it to be deleted, but that isn't that case, the policies of Wikipedia being an Encyclopedia, where it contains information that is of interest to some people, than it should be allowed to make a page about a band that is well known through out the Chicago suburbs. There is no good reason why this page should be deleted, it is a justified page and deserves to be on Wikipedia, I respect this site enough to put a page up myself, not waiting for some reporter to do it for me, I do my own work, and it took me a long time to get enough information to make this page. --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←This is getting ridiculous. If you continue wilfully refusing to read the pages you're being repeatedly advised to read, I'm going to treat you as a disruptive editor. You are very welcome to post in this discussion - or any other part of Wikipedia - but not if you refuse to work with anyone else. — iridescent 20:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I just say I read those pages? I am sticking to what I think is right, and you are just presenting stuff over and over again, I get your point, but what is so bad about my page? --Les Paul Maniac (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:BAND again, then come back and tell us specifically which of the criteria you think this band meets and why. If you can't answer that question, then please don't post again in this thread until you can answer it. — iridescent 20:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt KEEP okay seriously guys, this is a band!! wikipedia is a source of information for people who need to know stuff and this is a band that people know because they are quite known on MySpace. In fact i use this wikipedia page when im editing the names and composers for their songs. If this page gets deleted a lot of people will be dissapointed. dont let the fact that they have few sources as an excuse for getting rid of them. in fact why are you guys on this page if their an unknown band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruth982 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC) — Thetruth982 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Thetruth982 appears to have made exclusively vandalism edits, save only for his contribution here. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 16:29, 11 May 2008 (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.