Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic erotica

: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. The deletion arguments pointed out issues with the notability of this band which wasn't addressed by those saying the article should be kept. When we discount the distracting votes made by possible SPA, the keep arguments stand considerably weaker. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Sonic Erotica]]=

:{{la|Sonic Erotica}} ([{{fullurl:Sonic erotica|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonic erotica}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

{{notavote}}

Non-notable band with only very limited coverage Passportguy (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Fails Wp:Band, Wp:Notability, and fits Csd-7--SKATER Speak. 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. It might be an A7 candidate, but it's not clear to me that it is. Hairhorn (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have every intention of making every improvement necessary to adhere to no less than the minimum quality requirements that Wikipedia has set forth. I will be maintaining and updating the Sonic Erotica entry as time progresses. There is an enormous amount of data that is being compiled regarding this subject and I respectlfully request your indulgence as I "muddle through" that while learning how to better use Wikipedia.

Thank you.

--Mirror Man (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Question: With all due respect to TexA.N.S., how did that band meet Wikipedia standards of qualifaction? I'd like to better understand by comparision.

Thank You,

--97.67.12.10 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Question.

--Mirror Man (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Both of you , read WP:MUSIC, it lists what makes bands notable for inclusion. Also, I almost thought this article was going to deal with actual erotica of Sonic the Hedgehog (my mind is totally in the gutter). But anyway, A7 for failing WP:MUSIC criteria for bands. The sources on the talk page may cut it, so I withdraw my !vote for now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Members of the band are notable and its worth including for its role in those developments and music history. In other words, these participants make the band notable, even though in and of itself, is marginal. This is discussed on the article talk page. (and before anyone jumps all over me, if Tina Turner and Jerry Garcia were part of a band with limited notability, it would still be worth including because of that history). ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

::Not True, Scars on Broadway Was a band that featured Daron Malakian A famous guitarist, and it was deleted and redirected to him. The Article was recreated once the band became more active. The band could be listed on the notable peoples talk page.--SKATER Speak. 15:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Too funny Ten Pound Hammer! LOL. No, the Sonic Erotica that I speak of has nothing to do with any sort of pornography or sexually explicit materials. No hedgehogs (or otters)either. Thank you for your reconsideration. Alsom for notoriety, member Mike Meengs was with the band TexA.N.S. which spun off to form the band, Tool. Mike went on to form other projects. One of which was Sonic Erotica with lead vocalist, Brian Stevenson. Sonic Erotica was recognised and given airtime by 98 ROCK (WXTB-FM) a Clear Channel Communications station. Mike Meengs then went on to form LVX Nova, an ambient jazz group that was signed by Miramar Productions and received airtime on MTV/VH1. Brian Stevenson performed with Mike on the LVX Nova debut album.

Thank you Childofmidnight. Well put.

--Mirror Man (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Mirror Man! I found a Sonic Erotica CD on ebay in Pennsylvania!

--97.67.12.10 (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?&as_src=-newswire+-wire+-presswire+-PR+-press+-release+-wikipedia&q=%22Sonic+erotica%22 trivial] coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep PhilKnight's justification for deletion, "trivial coverage" is opinionated. Although something may appear trivial to him, may not be to others who have experienced this point in Tampa Bay history.--97.67.12.10 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — 97.67.12.10 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • The central criterion which governs whether a subject deserves an article is called the General Notability Guideline. This states that a subject is sufficiently notable to have its own article if there is significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The google news search that I've linked to indicates the coverage is trivial, not significant. PhilKnight (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I'd hate to break it to you Phil but your interpretation of the link you've added is just that, YOUR interpretation. I agree to keep Sonic Erotica. Obviously this in not a band of international notoriety but clearly they have achieved (at least) local celebrity status. We shouldn't try to erase local or regional historical events just because we may have become desensitized on a global level. Clearly, Sonic Erotica has impacted lives and has influenced many people even after over a decade has passed since they've dis-banded. Whomever started the Sonic Erotica entry, is obviously trying to make that point as well. Keep it. Who does it hurt?--DoomsdayDevice3D (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)— DoomsdayDevice3D (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

By the way, Criteria for musicians and ensembles: MY interpretation of this criteria, Sonic Erotica and/or members meets no less than numbers 6, 7, 9 and 12!--97.67.12.10 (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Could you provide evidence of these claims? PhilKnight (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question PhilKnight, Much evidence has already been provided at the external links I've already provided. And there are still more to come. Have you reviewed each and every single one for yourself? Your question however has posed me to ask, "Can you provide evidence to the contrary"?--Mirror Man (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow! It's about time someone out there recognized these guys! Who knows? Maybe these guys will get back together because of this posting and even donate towards Wiki! I hear that Brian Stevenson has got several projects including something called TripKit [http://www.reverbnation.com/tripkit].--97.89.112.126 (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep Third party discussions are available for others to see for themselves and are and will continue to be provided. That is as long as others such as ESkog don't take it upon themselves to delete that information to help justify their own arguments.--Mirror Man (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC) — Mirror Man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep This has gotten me curious and I've found many third (and fourth) party references towards Sonic erotica throughout multiple internet search engines. Although this band hasn't existed for what appears to be at least a decade, it still has achieved a regional "notoriety" and should be recognized accordingly.--Mindmachine (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC) — Mindmachine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

New users have a right to express their opinions.--97.89.112.126 (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

:New users absolutely have a right to express their opinions, but if someone creates an account solely to !vote on an AFD, that should be noted and taken into account by the closing admin. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Points to Hammer for making me laugh. However, the article needs a serious cleanup and improvement in sourcing before I'd lean to keep it...not to mention the notability issues.Tyrenon (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Would be more than happy to oblige on the "clean up". Perhaps you can offer some specifics? I'm still trying to gain a "feel" for this and some constructive criticism is always appreciated.--Mirror Man (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC). I'm currently studying other bands' wikis for format references. I intend to change band promo photo to a less "in your face" size. And I'm meeting with the former band mates on an individual basis for further recounts.--Mirror Man (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh by the way. To the other anonymous and non-anonymous "voters" as it were that want to see these gentlemen recognised, I thank you. I believe it's understood that it is not a democracy here however, I do appreciate the support.--Mirror Man (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2009 (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.