Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Exchange*

The Exchange*

(Note: lengthy commentary moved to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/The Exchange*. If you have comments please put them there. If you want to vote please vote here. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:06, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC))

This band article lists one (short) album. They're "planning to tour extensively," their recordings "shine with potential," and most of the article comes from the band's web site. Best of luck, guys. For now, delete band vanity. Gazpacho 23:41, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 00:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It isn't the job of Wikipedia to give unknown bands attention. DCEdwards1966 00:45, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
• I am not affiliated with The Exchange. They are start-up musicians. Please, keep. Jamirus99 01:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I believe Jamirus99 has a point, keep StrYkEr963 02:19, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC).
  • First posting by the above editor. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆
    • That's not me Jamirus99 19:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Having read what has been said, keep. DragonAvatar 02:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • First posting by the above editor. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆
    • That's not me, either. Jamirus99 19:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, however why is there an asterisk in the title? The article says the asterisk was only used on a certain webpage to differentiate the band from another with a similar name. I don't see a reason for it to be used here, so recommend the title be corrected. It should also be reworked to removed POV, and if this is quoted verbatim from a Website, then this becomes a copyvio issue. 23skidoo 02:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I'm a band inclusionist, but this is a PoV rant with some info about a group. Where's the music? The shows? nn. Wyss 02:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Band vanity (as well as utterly POV boosterism). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:15, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Famous first, page second is the way it works. A desire to promote them so they don't "sink unnoticed into the deep waters that surround Indie rock" is not a reason for them to have a page. Delete this, if they become famous later then a page can be written. Shane King 04:29, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Obviously, didn't read the Vanity page: " Articles about start-up businesses or musicians are not vanity pages and are considered acceptable, but it's preferable that the initial author not be someone affiliated with the project." Jamirus99 19:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Promotion is not what the Wikipedia's about. Whan the get as big as Yellowcard, then they get the article. On an unrelated note, personal testamonials are a bit of a problem under the GFDL, aren't they? hfool/Roast me 01:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Another person who didn't read the Vanity article. Jamirus99 19:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Start-up musicians are wonderful things, as are start-up businesses. Once they have become notable then we should have an article about them. -Willmcw 05:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Three in a row: " Articles about start-up businesses or musicians are not vanity pages and are considered acceptable, but it's preferable that the initial author not be someone affiliated with the project." Jamirus99 19:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)