Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOMPRESSOR

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KOMPRESSOR

Delete,Vanity Page. Does not meet criteria for notability (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MUSIC).

--Z0mb1 21:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've heard of Andreas Kompressor. Kompressor for president! - Home Row Keysplurge 03:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, KOMPRESSOR krush Z0mb1! Seriously, he has a high ranking on last.fm [1]. Smautf 09:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant. Net and search presence is not listed in the standards set forth in the criteria for notability (again, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MUSIC). Rules are rules. --Z0mb1 09:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although I must say that it surprises me that they have 3 album pages that were not also nominated. WORLD_DOMINATION, CRUSH_TELEVISION and DISCIPLINE. Whilst the band seems notable enough, and has 3 albums an all of that, I am not remotely convinced that the 3 albums are. I think that the 3 albums should not have their own pages. Not known at allmusic.com, but seems to have enough MP3 success and they have enough google with 344,000 hits, including a lot of discussion of the band. Delete the album pages though (oh, and DO NOT merge the album AFDs in to this one - just because the albums aren't notable doesn't make the band not notable). Actually probably do this AFD first, then deal with the albums, so that we get a better result. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need AFD to merge and redirect the album articles - David Gerard 22:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably should wait until this AFD is over though, right? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Minor industrial musician in the big world (I'm not surprised there's not an allmusic page) but deserves an article in the genre - David Gerard 22:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KOMPRESSOR KRUSH DELETION. Er, I mean keep. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kompressor's popularity in industrial music is growing with lightspeed (and its crushing power). --nbilenko
Keep. Is there a reason to expunge this piece of information from wikipedia? I think this artist meets the criteria for 'notable', only in a way not foreseen by WP:MUSIC. --Dnofos 22:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Perhaps should be used as an example to justify changes to the WP:MUSIC rules. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly notable electronic artist, even if sales aren't quite there. Yet another lacking part of WP:MUSIC. --badlydrawnjeff 00:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I hate people who want to delete articles for the F-en Badness of it. Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't care. Z0mb1, you are firstly ignorant and secondly arrogant and self righteous. Someone has put the time and effort to write an article and you just want to torpedo it.
Keep - not my style of music but looks notable enough novacatz 10:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean Up - Oh come on, you haven't heard of Kompressor? Obviously, that article looks like total crap right now, but it can be shaped up by a diligent person more aware of his history. - Liontamer 19:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: KOMPRESSOR IS NOTABLE FOR CRUSHING OF AMERICA -- Bobdoe (Talk) 20:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up though it looks like it will be kept anyway. I second Liontamer. --ROY YOЯ 17:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I really can't see why this is being considered for deletion, other than maybe someone submiting it as such just to cause trouble or something. Kittynboi 22:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think someone could make this article over again so it doesn't look like a big inside joke and turn it into an article for a real artist. Bravado 03:31, 19 December 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.