Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pain Hertz

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Despite extended discussion, only two credible users (that are not clearly meatpuppets or the like) came out and argued for a Keep. The result withstanding, all users here are reminded that the

WP:CIVIL policies are mandatory throughout the project, including here at AFD. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Pain Hertz

Pain Hertz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per

WP:MUSIC, this article has absolutely no case for notability. No real sources- just self-published material and vendor sites (amazon, etc). King Öomie 14:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep - They have at least two notable members for other reasons - this fits criterion #6 is Wikipedia:Notability (music) (Carmine Guida is a famous instructor/musician, Nick Wolven is a published science fiction author, Michael Kaplan is now working with Joe Bergamini and Jimmy Wilgus of 4Front, and Lozupone's music has been used in audio studies). They may fit #1 and #5 (although I remember seeing something about how they are against record labels as a political position - I'll have to find a source for that. Maybe it was boingboing.) A lot of the references are actual real sources - I see only one vendor site source actually. Am I missing something? However, I think the strongest claim for notability is #6. Luminifer (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (
    Kevin James would fail this similarly, unless they fit one of the other criteria. The 4Front article is entirely without sources to support ITS notability (unless you count the circular notability from Pain Hertz itself), which makes me unsure about Kaplan's notability as well. --King Öomie 17:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Indeed, I don't agree with your interpretation there. In fact, I believe the reason for that clause is as follows: if two members have their own wiki pages, it is unclear where to put the information for the band. For this reason, it makes sense to create a single place for that information to go - otherwise, we could always merge this with one of the articles - but which one? Does that make any sense? (The 4Front page does kind of stink - Joe Bergamini is the most notable member there, and HIS notability is established a little better - but not much - on his article... but in that case I think it's just a poor article - this guy's pretty famous, at least in the music scene he's involved in). Luminifer (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, having a Wiki article doesn't really fix notability. I'm kind of approaching this from the standpoint of properly referencing and dimensioning an engineering drawing. I'm fairly confident in my interpretation of that language (and again, I'm referring only to #6). Perhaps I should open a discussion at
WP:VPP. --King Öomie 17:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Having a wiki article doesn't fix notability, but it does present the logistical problem of where to put this information, if not here... (putting aside other concerns on notability for the moment) Luminifer (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thought I completely forgot to actually say it, what I meant was, "I'm not sure all of the people involved here meet the criteria to have articles themselves", which may result in the multiple-locations issue being moot. --King Öomie 18:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, are you arguing against the interpretation of item #6, or are you actually questioning the notability of 4Front, Joe Bergamini, etc? Luminifer (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure anymore @_@ --King Öomie 07:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, would you mind stating the basis of your claim that this doesn't, at the very least, satisfy point #6 at
WP:MUSIC? Are you claiming that the associated acts are not notable, or is it because one of them is notable, but not for being a musician (despite the wording in the policy not stating that explicitly). Again, my belief is that point #6 is there so that the information is not duplicated across numerous articles, leading to serious maintenance issues. This would apply regardless of the reasons for the subjects' notability. Luminifer (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
"Meh" and yes. #6 doesn't really state anything explicitly- it uses a number of adjectives that appear unnecessary if 'famous for being a musician' isn't a requirement. And I'm reasonable sure 1-12 are there because Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --King Öomie 15:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. It has two independant and distinct phrases, describing the two separate cases it applies to. (1) "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" (the one I say applies here), and (2) "is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles" (this IS meant to apply, I imagine, to a supergroup setting, where members of notable bands form a band that is not yet notable in its own right). Luminifer (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first part is the supergroup part, I'd venture. The second part I believe refers to solo projects of already notable musicians. And again, I'm referring to the language used, "independently notable". --King Öomie 15:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That language applies here perfectly - all of these members are notable for their works independent of Pain Hertz. How is that not clear? Luminifer (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a circular reference issue. If a member of 4Front is notable in part due to his work with Pain Hertz, but Pain Hertz is notable due in part to that member's work with 4Front... I'm saying that the term "Independent nobility" is intended to avoid this. I might need a graph. --King Öomie 16:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how that would be a problem, but it simply isn't the case. I stated at the beginning here, Carmine Guida is a noted instructor and musician, who's actually very famous in his circles and has been the subject of numerous print articles. Nick Wolven likewise is a semi-famous author - clearly this has nothing to do with Pain Hertz. 4 Front I don't know much about, but if you look at Joe Bergamini's page (the founder of 4 Front), this guy has been around - he's involved with the Movin' Out Billy Joel musical, has worked with Bumblefoot of Guns n Roses, is the subject of print articles... None of this has to do with Pain Hertz.. Luminifer (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, this is getting a lawyery for my taste (read: really don't want to make that graph). I will concede the point that they just might pass #6, but I'd prefer to not close this AFD while there are existing Delete votes. --King Öomie 16:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you make the graph, you'll find no circular notability - all of these people are _independently_ notable. Luminifer (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]



{{Not a ballot}}

I'm sorry, but was there a reason to add this here? This page isn't exactly flooding with SPAs. If this is going to be boilerplate, perhaps it should be in the AFD header template by default. --King Öomie 18:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was added because you sent a message to a user which seemed to be asking them to take part in the discussion because you knew they would support your side of the debate, although this is not strictly against policy, I reserve the right to add Not a Ballot if I see necessary, as could anyone, SpitfireTally-ho! 06:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some light sleuthing likely would have revealed that he asked me to put the article up for AFD (if I felt there was a case for it). I linked him the created report in the interest of him not having to lurk my contribs page. I don't mind if the template stays, I just didn't appreciate the implication. --King Öomie 07:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify I did indeed ask Sir King's opinion on the notability of the subject. He looked at t and felt it was worthy of this AfD and, as he should, gave me to link to show me his reponse to my query. The boilerplate above is foolish and un-req'd. As for the AfD, Sir King put his reasons in the opening nomination statement and, after reading his lead-in, I must say I concur that the page is a...
  • delete non-notable subject. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries, thanks for explaining that Kingoomieiii, template removed, however, Wiki libs, it would be appreciated if you wouldn't refer to my actions as "foolish", I mean; it looked a bit odd from my side! Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 14:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nah Libs, it wasn't 'foolish'. It's common to check an AFD-filer's contribs to make sure they're not canvassing. If I'd prefaced my post on your page with "per your request", it wouldn't have been an issue. --King Öomie 13:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep (edit conflict)(edit conflict) I've seen this band several times live, and was one of many, many people at their shows. I would presume that it lends some credence to their claims of notability, not withstanding some of their original interpretations of mash-ups (two songs, same chord progression, performed simultaneously) which they've become quite well known and liked for. It strikes me as clear evidence of 7, in addition to 6, especially considering what the ex-keyboardist Michael Kaplan has gone on to do since his departure from the band. --amalthya (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)— amalthya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • King (who tagged this here), that seems to be true enough. However, I thought this was "not a ballot", so if they have a valid thing to say, it should not matter if they haven't done much on here before, and if they don't, then even if they were a major contributor, it would not matter... or am I missing something about "not a ballot"? Luminifer (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get defensive. 'Not a ballot' is not a free pass for SPAs (in fact, nothing is). Three good arguments from three accounts pull more weight than the same three from one account. You'll notice I tossed the standard template up there for a user who's SECOND EDIT is to an RFA- I didn't strike it, I didn't demand a CU. I just tagged it. --King Öomie 15:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not getting defensive, I was genuinely asking. Their post isn't all that helpful anyway in that it's full of anecdotal stuff and a light claim to
WP:MUSIC policies. Luminifer (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
A CU would not be completely out-of-order here though. It is an odd-duck edit from a dormant account. They tend to have a meaty odour to them. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, checkuser isn't magic, it needs something to check against. --King Öomie 15:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was birth'd by an IP. The check would be between the 'potential pork', that mother IP and any other accounts that were created from that IP. I think the convo is going off-topic. Chat should stick to the merits of article subject and its keepability. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Seems like a case is made for meeting requirement 6
    WP:MUSIC; the ambiguity of the claims made could go either way, at least, enough to justify that this one stick around for awhile. Mozucat (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Hmm? another odd duck. King... strange thing are afoot. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Odd duck"? Are you referring to me? Jeez, and people wonder why Wikipedia participation is waning. Forgive me if I was mistaken, but I thought that this was an open forum, not an old boy's club. Mozucat (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Libs, your lack of
        WP:AGF regarding your conversation here - which could be seen as a form of light pre-nomination Wikipedia:Canvassing for biased votestacking (as Spitfire was wary of above), considering the language used in your message (VERY non-neutral) as well as the fact that all of the delete votes cast so far come from people involved in that conversation. Luminifer (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
Skater I presume has my page watchlisted, and involved himself without either of us asking him (not that there's a problem with that). If you have a specific issue with either of our behavior, I suggest you do something about it, rather than pointing to it to attempt to make your case whenever someone votes delete. So far we have your Keep, and two others from very new accounts. Mozucat appears to be a new account from an experienced user (
obvious SPA. And by the way, Libs didn't ask me to come here and vote Delete. He asked me to make my own judgement, as he's done in the past- and in the past, I've disagreed with his vote. --King Öomie 14:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I did not "do something about it" because so far, I was
WP:AGF. Luminifer (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
They are questionable because they are 'out-of-the-blue' from accounts which have contributed nothing. Look through the entire AfD listing for every subject matter... votes are questioned all the time when they come from editors who have never done anything before. You can smell the meat on this one from a mile away. Hey King do you want a similarity?... Luminifer is a member of a band called Pain Hertz. Mozocat has posted here about the band 'Brooklyn band, Pain Hertz, has done this great 'mash-up' cover of Danzig's Mother and Michael Jackson" ... And Mozocat is linked as a "friend" of Luminifer on pretty much all of his LastFM profiles. AND... surprise, surprise... Luminifer is listed as a friend on Mozucat's Last.FM profile pages.links galore Ooo Ooo that smell... ? The Real Libs-speak politely 15:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha. Very interesting, but I think you are reading too much into the closed network that is underground New York City music, and the internet... Luminifer (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amalthya is as well. Suddenly allegations of canvassing ring hollow. --King Öomie 15:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who you expect to be commenting on a page besides people who are very familiar with the band (see my complain below). Regardless I've now figured out how to get outside input so we should see what happens from here. Luminifer (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely need outside input, as the personal attacks have gotten out of hand. Never mind that none of the standard protocols at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion were followed when listing this AfD, such as "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history" and "Place a notification on significant pages that link to your nomination, to enable those with related knowledge to participate in the debate.". Luminifer (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No no no, don't start backpedaling into MY faults here (you appear to have found the AFD just fine). You brought your personal friends into this after accusing me of votestacking. They're FANS OF THE BAND- did you not expect them to vote keep? --King Öomie 15:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is only half of what was not done in this case - and in fact it wasn't the 'required' half. Maybe you assumed (rightfully) that I would find it, but it still is apparently not "civil". As I'm a major editor of this article, of course I am going to vote keep, so that is not neutral either. You did none of the steps required to get outside input - and I was unaware of these steps until I did some reading recently, thanks to Spitfire's notice above. Also, please don't assume people are my friends because they added me on some social networking site - I will accept anyone's add. Finally, I never accused you of votestacking - you have been quite reasonable in most regards. I suggesting that Libs' actions could be perceived as possibly unintentional votestacking. Luminifer (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who do I expect to comment? I don't know, maybe someone who can possibly vote neutrally. Someone who will read the article with reference to the notability guidelines, check the sources, all that good stuff. Someone not invited here because they were a fan. --King Öomie 15:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like the implications there. If you do not properly notify the people who can vote "neutrally" (as I've just done and as you should have done when you created this AfD), the only people who will be voting are those who happen upon the page on their own (typically fans) -- and the people who read YOUR talk page (and the person who asked you to nominate it, thus guaranteeing two "votes" - but again, this is not a ballot, right?). Hopefully now this will be remedied. Luminifer (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
conflict of interest or involvement, lest users feel deceived when it's discovered. --King Öomie 15:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Well hey, whaddya know. --King Öomie 15:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what you may think, this should be judged on its merits according to
WP:MUSIC, and is not a ballot, so the admin will have to decide. I do not appreciate the invasions of privacy so I may stay out of things from this point on. Luminifer (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
If posting a link to a section of this website that you wrote is an invasion of privacy, I don't know what to tell you. And don't worry, at this point I am intimately aware that this isn't a ballot. --King Öomie 15:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to libs posting links that may or may not have been to me on social networking sites. I believe that comes close to
WP:OUTING, regardless of whether or not it's actually me (as described in the policy). If that's what's going to be going on here, then I have had enough. Luminifer (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
A google search revealed that you had prior contact with two SPAs that appeared to support an AFD that you're vested in. This was in no way linked to your identity. --King Öomie 16:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Links were posted to actual profile pages, again who may or may not be me
WP:OUTING exactly, but it makes me uncomfortable enough that such things are being posted here. As libs themselves stated, this is all distracting from the actual discussion of notability - but libs continues to post such things anyway. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest does not affect this discussion, as it is based only on the actual notability as discussed. Arguments can be made, but not proven, for canvassing on either side, but this is not a ballot, as we keep saying. This needs to be decided on the notability alone. Luminifer (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
No, I'm done with this. The impropriety on both sides was minor. If you really want to, a checkuser can blank out all revisions that contained that link. It's really just a Google result page, which happened to link to a profile page. As far as I can tell, Libs only posted it here. Do whatever you feel you need to do. --King Öomie 16:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oversight, I mean. Wow. That only went uncorrected for five and half hours. --King Öomie 21:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who, exactly, are the "two or more independently notable musicians" in the band? Also note that passing one of the criteria at
L0b0t (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
As I stated above (in all that heated text), (Carmine Guida is a famous instructor/musician, Nick Wolven is a published science fiction author, Michael Kaplan is now working with Joe Bergamini and Jimmy Wilgus of 4Front... Luminifer (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at all those articles, I have to say all of them should go to AfD, none of those musicians or authors or bands meet the inclusion criteria at Wikipedia.
L0b0t (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • There is nothing significant about these particular people forming a band. The members are insufficiently notable to make the band notable merely by association. Triplestop x3 22:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Luminifer, a band MAY be notable when it passes one of the points at
      WP:MUSIC, it is however not a guarantee that it IS notable when it passes them. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • This may be true, but why is point #6 there if it needs reliable sources? There are reliable sources on the band members' wiki pages - in fact, Carmine Guida was AfD'ed and survived it. If this page does get deleted, if anything, it needs to be merged with one of the band members' pages. My interpretation (which is apparently up for debate) of point #6 was that it was there to avoid copying the same material across multiple band members' articles. Luminifer (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those are two separate things. Indeed, it does not need to be duplicated, and when the information is somewhere else, then this band may be notable. However, it does not get any independent references in reliable sources. The notability of (some of) the members does not necessarily mean that the band is notable, that is an independent discussion, and in my feeling, seeing all the blogspots and bloggers-references, this one does not have that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)][reply]
          • Well, my point is, if we have to merge this information (such as discography, if nothing else), where do we put it? That information is verifiable, at least via amazon. Luminifer (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • P.S., Carmine Guida already mentions that he also performed with Pain Hertz (though that statement is also unreferenced!!). Nothing to merge here, however, reliably sourcing this article may help. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There seems to be a reference to archive.org which features him on a recording. Misspelled, I think. Luminifer (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not sure if that is a reliable source.... --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I thought that album liner notes and their digital equivelant were reliable sources. Luminifer (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Self published sources, sure, but there are still no independent reliable sources in addition to them, and I start to suspect that there are none, seen how strongly you defend these three pages of marginal to no notability (in terms of Wikipedia-notability) based on these blog sources. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
              ]
  • Delete per nom - no significant coverage in reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are print sources buried in amongst the other sources. Luminifer (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where? The reference tags do allow for referencing without having a working external link ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is one for the L magazine, for instance. Luminifer (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Wolven Triplestop x3 23:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting, but will not resolve in time for this debate to finish. Should we have an extension, go with Michael Kaplan being notable (kind of a weak argument), or merge with Carmine Guida? Luminifer (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is already there .... unreferenced, and as far as I can see, really independent references are not available. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This isn't relevant to the discussion of notability, but to the discussions regarding accusations of canvassing on my part. At the Pain Hertz myspace page there was apparently an announcement via bulletin, followed by a blog entry a few days later [1]. This could account for the increased visibility. It also contains information not yet incorporated into the article, so who knows. Luminifer (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question-Luminifer has your band ever opened for anyone of significance for an an extended tour? An extended tour with a notable act would help improve notability. A one shot deal as a support act means nothing. But if you and your band toured for an extended period with a notable act it would help. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I resent the implications there. Regardless of your unfounded suspicions regarding my identity, you are not supposed to discuss who you think I am, or might be, in compliance with
WP:OUTING. Please refrain from attempting to reveal you who think I am in a public forum, as this is grossly against policy. Luminifer (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Let me rephrase Wiki Libs' question: Luminifer has the band ever opened for anyone of significance for an an extended tour? An extended tour with a notable act would help improve notability. A one shot deal as a support act means nothing. But if the band toured for an extended period with a notable act it would help. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. I'm not the expert on this band, which is why I created their page (and which is why I created the 100+ pages I have created on here). Luminifer (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You created the page because you are not the expert on the band .. that does not make any sense. However, whether you are an expert or not, you seem to be the most knowledgeable (as you created the page), and are probably of all wiki-editors, you are an 'expert' on this band (again, you did quite some research finding all the references that you did find). I am hence surprised that you did not find any which do satisfy our hunger for independent reliable sources, but found only the dependent or unreliable ones. I hope you can find editors who can help us further, because we are not getting anywhere. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so civil in this matter - considering the reactions that occurred above (even down to false accusations of SPA's for
WP:OUTING and privacy attacks involved here (regardless of whether correct, they are incredibly unsettling), I'll be leaving wikipedia anyway, so if no one else finds sources, I guess that's it. Thanks for your time! Luminifer (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
comment "Because of our past problems, opinions offered by new or anonymous users are often met with suspicion and may be discounted during the closing process. This decision is made at the discretion of the closing admin after considering the contribution history and pattern of comments. In practice, civil comments and logical arguments are often given the benefit of doubt while hostile comments are presumed to be bad-faith. Please note that verifiable facts and evidence are welcome from anybody and will be considered during the closing process." Wikipedia:Guide to deletion .. please don't respond to this comment, it's just a quotation. Luminifer (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - it's well-researched articles getting deleted that discourages newcomers (or anyone) from creating articles at all. this is (was, considering that I'm just about done here considering the personal attacks and privacy violations that this AfD caused) why I created so many new articles (over 100) - and almost all of them so far have stayed, and it's a great joy when someone who _actually_ knows about the subject comes along and adds something. I guess that's about all I have left to say before I'm done with this. Luminifer (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a notable band, no reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pain_Hertz&oldid=1140763814"