Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anal Cunt - Wikipedia

Article Images

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 Keep. Deizio talk 22:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep this is an encyclopedia site which should make available all correct and historical information on all subject matter (in this case a band called anal cunt) regardless of how any one person feels about the subject at hand.. i don.t particularly even like the band (though i am fond of the genre of music which they were historically a part of).. allow the censorship of any one piece of historical information and you might as well also support (and expect) any and all censorship (hiding/alteration/subjective control) of any and all information..

Delete Fails to meet WP:BAND and is not notable. Dominick ^(TALK) 23:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Anal cunt is very notable, not necessarily because they are popular, and I am not, but people know of them. Remember that wikipedia is not censored, and a bands name should be no reason to delete it.
Strong Delete - I take the liberty of ignoring all rules here. Any band that wants to call itself 'Anal Cunt' ought not to be surprised if people want to delete references to them. They can be got rid of. - Richardcavell 00:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Moderately notable band - certainly more so than many with articles on WP. If I've heard of them on the other side of the planet (and I am not a grindcore fan, and certainly not a fan of Anal Cunt's music) then that's saying something. Simply having an offensive name is not in itself a valid reason for deletion. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They're real and they are notable per WP:BAND- that is all. "Anal Cunt" = 675,000 hits. My biology may be a bit rusty, but even so I suspect the vast majority of those are in fact likely to pertain to the band. Badgerpatrol 00:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Also, while I admit that whether or not an article may prove offensive is not a valid reason for deletion, I can't say I will be overly dissapointed if this one is deleted.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 00:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The article doesn't really asert any notability, aside from the fact that the band attempts to be offensive. I actually have heard of them, but I think I've only heard of them because of their name. -- Kicking222 01:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not into grindcore, but I have heard of them. Multiple albums for sale on amazon, an allmusic.com bio[1], tours, albums released on Earache Records, Scott Hull in the band, news coverage as per the external links, etc. would seem to meet WP:BAND. Шизомби 02:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't like AC at all, but they meet the guidelines set in WP:BAND without question and have a small, strong following. Danny Lilithborne 02:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Meets WP:BAND by having several albums with an important indie label (Earache Records). Also, their allmusic.com entry certainly makes them seem notable. --Joelmills 02:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as above. However, this article does need some work. Watch'd --Dwiki 03:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Schizombie Zero sharp 04:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - dreadful band but a clear WP:MUSIC pass. Ac@osr 08:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets WP:MUSIC standards. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 11:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Punkmorten 15:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Anal Cunt meet the "notability" criteria. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can start trampling over all the rules dealing with deleting an article. 02:00, 18 May 2006 (AEST)
Keep. Nine albums (according to allmusic; the article claims fifteen), more than half a million Google hits, press coverage--clearly meets WP:MUSIC. ergot 16:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see where it meets WP:MUSIC there is nothing about Google hits in the standard of listing. When going down the list, I see marginal qualificiations, if you consider the label notable, I don't see any notable bands listed in the label's roster. The best fit could be, Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. I dont see any frequent publications, only a few mentions. BTW, I don't hunt down offensive bands to AfD, how dare you claim I do. This seemed like yet another vanity listing. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? When did I claim that? I have no reason to think that you do that, and wouldn't have mentioned it even if I did. ergot 18:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey sorry if I was ambiguous when I made my post but I was refering to "Richardcavell" and "Conrad Devonshire", whose comments make me beleive they only care about enforcing the rules when they agree with them. 203.206.161.209 11:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - The band are on the Earache Records label which clearly meets the criteria for being a notable independent; it was formed nearly 20 years ago and has a large roster of acts - 16 of their acts have been considered notable enough to have their own existing Wiki articles, which answers that point. They have also been a regular international touring act. Thus WP:MUSIC is met. I couldn't give a flying one about this mob, believe me, but the facts are the facts. Ac@osr 18:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - My last Comment Earache records qualifies as a notable label because the minor acts/bands they carry have wikipedia entries? Seriously, none are really notable on their own. It seems there isn't enough to eliminate minor acts like this. Perhaps the WP:MUSIC standard isn't notable either. I guess I better go make wikipedia entries on Mario and his all monkey harmonica band Dominick ^(TALK) 00:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further comment - if you disagreeing with WP:MUSIC in itself, I'm sure there's a process but this isn't it. Ac@osr 07:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment: If you think labels such as Earache or Nuclear Blast eg are not notable, you're opting to exclude entire subcultures from, including death metal and grindcore. You may never have heard of them, but some of these bands have record sales (in total worldwide) in the 100.000s, play regularly on festivals that attract tens-of thousands of attendant (e.g. Wacken Open Air, Dynamo Open Air). Maybe you have miscomprehended what constitutes notabilty. Spearhead 21:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that the appropriate place would be the talk page for WP:MUSIC, but there might be another discussion going on somewhere. BTW, I would have probably supported deleting this if it weren't for the fact that they have nine verifiable albums. ergot 13:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - definitely notable. per above Spearhead 21:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Richardcavell. Peter Grey 21:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above--Bill 21:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, distasteful band names aren't a reason for deletion. LjL 22:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Richardcavell M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with Joelmills (I couldn't have said it better myself). Progkeeg 01:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Joelmills. La Pizza11 21:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's an unpleasant name, but they meet the notability criteria. -- Karada 21:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep They are a well known band and they do get some airplay on college stations, I can speak of at least one that does. Deleting this amounts to nothing more than censorship as the article is fairly well done. Censorship is bad...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidvicted (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep They are definitely a notable band in the heavy metal, grindcore, and hardcore punk subcultures. As for their "offensive" name, Wikipedia has numerous articles with similar or worse-sounding titles so I do not see why this is getting singled out. --EBCouncil ^{Speak with the Council} 01:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It's flat-out infuriating to me that this guy would claim that the bands on Earache aren't notable. If you don't think past/present acts on the label like At the Gates, Entombed, Deicide, etc... are notable you really have no business suggesting deletion here, and a quick glance at Dominick's user page suggests some ulterior motives at work in this delete-nomination — Preceding unsigned comment added by PublickStews (talk • contribs)
- Funny how nearly everyone who wants this article deleted is either "proud of their Christian heritage" or thinks the rules should be broken because they don't like the naughty words ;-) WepV 01:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as above. Very notable. Kevin Doran 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Meets WP:MUSIC. Beno1000 23:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Notable and influential band
Strong Keep Per various notability arguments above. Personally, I have long been aware of this band despite having no interest in grindcore. Some of the arguments for deletion here are nothing short of appaling. N6 20:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Anal Cunt are widely known even among non-followers of extreme music. Earache is a notable lable with many notable bands: Napalm Death, Entombed and At The Gates, in particular as genre instigators/definers with very large record sales, that tour or have toured across the world, including major festivals. Simply because you are ignorant of these bands influence and notability does not mean they are not notable. The purpose of an Encyclopaedia is to inform, so be informed. Easily meets the uneccessarily exclusionist WP. --KharBevNor 20:56, 21 May 2006 (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.