Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Point Valid

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. Despite the relisting a short while ago, I am closing this now as "no consensus" per the post by Debresser on my talk page. Even though this has been relisted only 2 times before, earlier I did not appreciate enough that these relists were carried out somewhat tardively and the AfD has been open for more than 3 weeks now, with not much discussion being added in the last 2.5 weeks. Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point Valid

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was originally CSD'd on A7 grounds, after an objection its been reinstated for community input at afd. As for a rational for deletion: No awards, no platinum albums, no credible claim of significance, no notability, and therefore no reason to have as article on the band here on Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this article, and I asked TomStar81 to reconsider the speedy deletion, suggesting to ask for community input at Afd. I thank TomStar81 for agreeing to this.

I think we have a nice, short article here, with a few pictures, and no less than 14 references. The simple fact that there is what to write and that there are so many references, relatively speaking, already speaks for itself. Additional significance is lend to this band by the collaboration with Catherine Asaro, a notable SF&F author, as discussed in one of the sections of the article at length. Debresser (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: You may have forgotten to add "keep" or "delete" to your comment here, remember this is afd, and all you have offered is a comment, not a position. ~~As a reminder, if your material is deleted her, it will be deleted with prejudice, so make it count.~~ TomStar81 (Talk) 03:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81, can you please clarify what "deleted with prejudice" means? I have participated in thousands of AfD debates, and do not recall hearing that phrase before. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Its a "me" thing, not a Wikipedia thing, that's probably why :) To clarify, csd deletion is deletion without prejudice to me because it means that an article - once it over comes its original cad-related issue - can be recreated at will by anyone and given a fair chance to survive, while an afd deletion is deletion with prejudice since any attempt to recreate the article at or near where it was at the time of its deletion puts the article in question squarely in the cross-hairs of our csd-G8 criteria (recreation of an article deleted by afd), which makes it much harder to get the article in question back on here. And I would know this, because I've had previous WP:OWN issues with fiction articles and that was the exact problem I had when attempting to rebuild them. In this case, if the article is deleted through this process, then any attempt to rebuild it at or near its current format and layout is going to get it automatically csd-g8 tagged since we will be able to prove that such a rebuild is too close to the version originally deleted via this discussion. I should note here that under AGF there is some built in leeway for the article, its just that to me afd makes it much harder to recreate a page here than csd. Like I said, this is a "me" thing, not a Wikipedia thing, so the above is just how I look at the issue, and of course everyone looks at these things differently, so your view is probably not the same as mine. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81, if, in the future, this band has a charting recording, or is the subject of a detailed feature article in a reliable publication like Rolling Stone or the New York Times, then the article will be recreated in a New York minute. Things can change, articles or draft articles can be improved, and there is no "with prejudice" at least with regards to this topic. I do not think that CSD G8 applies at all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I thought your name sounded familiar, and now I know why: we had words six months ago over an entirely different issue and couldn't even agree to disagree :/ Relax, I know the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, and I know my duty is to the encyclopedia. If the article is recreated then its recreated, if its notable its notable, and if so it will stay. Does that put your mind at ease any? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I though it was obvious from my "comment" that my opinion is "keep", but since TomStar81 asked about it, let me just state this clearly. Debresser (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The unusual collaboration with Catherine Asaro takes the band to the level of notability that I am looking for. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy and wait for better coverage as although it may be considered one way or another, I'm not much good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Userfy. -Can't find enough coverage to justify it meeting notability criteria at present. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found and added this ref: Heaphy, Maura. 100 Most Popular Science Fiction Authors: Biographical Sketches and Bibliographies, p. 20 (Libraries Unlimited, 2010): "the indy rock group Point Valid released a CD of music that serves as a soundtrack to Asaro's novel". The articles in reliable sources SFScope, i09, and SF Site, together with the additional notoriety due to Catherine Asaro, make me comfortable with a "keep", and the book by Heaphy is merely confirmation. I also tidied the article up a bit.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2015 (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.