- 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 of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a self-acknowledged vanity page created by author User:Victorgrigas / User:Victor Grigas. [1] As the article says, "The group has not been prolific, and has not yet released a single album." The organization fails to meet any of the criteria set by WP:MUSIC. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If I could find a speedy deletion criterion to fit under, I would have speedy deleted it, but I can't find one. --Nlu 08:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - I can: vanity. See the next two entries, which were by the same author and have been speedily deleted. B.Wind 09:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- However, the current definition of vanity still refers only to individuals. (This might change; if you want it changed, please contribute further on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.) Since this isn't an individual, it doesn't quite fit. --Nlu 10:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I contend that (based on the User Page) because the author is a member of the outfit in question, it still fits the definition of vanity. It is certainly a solid argument for a speedy delete in this context. B.Wind 06:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- However, the current definition of vanity still refers only to individuals. (This might change; if you want it changed, please contribute further on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.) Since this isn't an individual, it doesn't quite fit. --Nlu 10:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- delete no releases, article portrays group as being obscure and unproductive. Pete.Hurd 21:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- do not delete! the group is obsscure and unproductive, but HAS been published in a magazine, all this is available at www.diabolical.org. If what is needed to keep it up is more content about the group, and about the other members of the group so as to eliminate vanity, then that can be written. (preceding comment by 206.222.35.101 23:52, 28 November 2005 (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.