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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination, due to the low participation. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kiltie Band

[edit]
Kiltie Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable college marching band. Some tangential mentions in newspapers, but not enough to satisfy WP:GNG's requirement that subjects receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." No evidence of notability. GrapedApe (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smalljim, great point about the renaming. If other colleges also have a Kiltie Band - or even if they don't - there's no way that this article (if not deleted) should be titled simply Kiltie Band. In fact, if you look at the top and bottom of the group's official homepage within CMU.edu, it verifies that their official, full name is Carnegie Mellon University Kiltie Band. Of course, on campus and in the local community they are simply referred to informally as the Kiltie Band. It's very surprising that over the nine years of this article's existence no other editor ever challenged the title. As far as your idea of having a general article about kiltie bands, it seems on the surface to be a very good idea, if of course the general subject is notable. It could include the names of all colleges (and other organizations) that have them. However, if there are any individual kiltie bands that are notable then they of course would qualify for having their own article. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An admin is handling it, but I posted the info so other editors in this discussion, and the closing admin, are aware of it. His opinion is meaningless since he's obviously not even reading any of the AfD articles. He's simply going into all of them and posting the same comment with a Delete "vote." Apparently, he's upset that Anand Bhatt was deleted and is retaliating by doing this disruptive editing in AfDs. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. We are not authorized to block users here, and the final decision will be based on WP:CONSENSUS and the strength of arguments, not a vote.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Graped, I already explained very clearly why I posted the info. Also, I'm fully aware how blocks happen and who can do them, and that we do not vote. That's why I put it in quotes ("vote"). You might want to read WP:URIP2. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why?--GrapedApe (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
because you're talking like a series of templates, all of them unneccesary. 86.44.18.165 (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248 have been blocked by Postdlf for sockpuppetry and retaliatory AfD postings.[1][2]. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update! --GrapedApe (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. And I don't know why you unstruck the sock's ivote, but any edit by a sock not only can be removed by any editor, in the case of an !vote it must be removed, especially in a case like this where the sock participated solely as retaliation for another article being deleted that he wanted to keep. See #3 at 3RR exemptions. As has been made very clear, the sock was not even reading any of the articles; he was simply going into one AfD after another to copy and paste his Delete comments. Did you read his comment above? He called the subject "this person"; proof that he never looked at the article or even the title of the article. ;) The admin who blocked the sock, already struck his !vote in the other AfD. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...except that the account was blocked for "Disruptive editing: account used only for repetitive, retaliatory AFD postings" so the exception for "Reverting actions performed by banned users, their sockpuppets and by tagged sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked accounts." does not apply. Sorry.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently still don't get it. Wikijustice2013 is the sockmaster and 99.99.174.248 is the sockpuppet. Read WP:SOCK. The two accounts are the same person and all the AfDs they participated in were fraudulant because they were done purely for retaliation. Did you not read the blocking admin's comments? It said, "I've indef blocked the nominator (Wikijustice2013) as a purely disruptive account, and the IP as an obvious sockpuppet. All of this seems to be retaliation for the Anand Bhatt AFD. I don't have time right now myself, but I'd recommend speedy closing this and any other AFD started by the same account as in bad faith." It's mind-boggling that you continue to beg not only for a bad-faith "Delete" !vote from an editor who so egregiously disrupted Wikipedia, but, more importantly, from one who never even read the Kiltie Band article (or any of the other AfD articles). I would strongly suggest that you drop this and move on. Fighting to keep the "Delete" of a very disruptive editor will not make you look good to any other editors who participate here, including the closing administrator. What you're doing is equivalent to a politician who says it's ok to keep the campaign contribution of a known felon because he didn't get caught until after he gave the money. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll cease my correct policy-based arguments and allow you to go against policy to strike the AFD !vote that no one would pay any attention to anyway. WP:HORSEMEAT applies.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2012 (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.
More