Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mk Ultra (California band): Difference between revisions

Mk Ultra (California band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of notability. I’ve twice tried to redirect it to John Vanderslice’s page, but this has been rebuffed without proper justification, so let it be debated instead. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mk Ultra. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – This band is sometimes mentioned as an early stop in the career of John Vanderslice who became more notable later, and they can be briefly introduced at his page. I do not support a redirect to Vanderslice’s article because “Mk Ultra (California band)” is an unlikely search term. As for the band itself, I can find no pro reviews of their albums or any other reliable media coverage from their era, and today they only tend to pop up in minor social media discussions about something Vanderslice was in long ago. —DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How about Mk Ultra, was that a reasonable search term, or Mk Ultra (band). This is only at the current strange title because someone who was trying to get this page deleted moved it During the previous deletion discussion. Regardless, if there is to be no standalone page (despite passing gng and wp:music#1) then there should be a merge of properly sourced content instead of not preserving it. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The “no consensus” in the old AfD is hardly the knockout punch that you imply, and WP:PRESERVE directly says: “Preserve appropriate content. Retain facts or ideas that would belong in an encyclopedia.” (Bold in original). Thus one can argue that this policy does not apply to things that are non-notable. —DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made no reference to the no consensus at the last afd. I claimed no knockout punch. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Coverage in independent reliable sources. SF Weekly, Trouserpress, allmusic, allmusic, Pitchfork, The Daily Utah Chronicle, The Kalamazoo Gazette, San Francisco Chronicle, The Charlotte Observer, The Rocket. Nom fails to address in anyway why the coverage is not good enough and above vote seems to mischaracterise the contemporary coverage (1996-mid 99) as being later coverage looking back. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Addressing noms claim of “rebuffed without proper justification”, adding more coverage is a Very solid justification, a justification that seems to have been totally ignored in their second redirect. The process is meant to be BRD. Boldy redirected, Revert and provide coverage, then Discuss (such as this belated afd), not just blindly revert again. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Trouser Press article is literally about Vanderslice and proves my point about Mk Ultra only being covered as one of his early endeavors. The SF Weekly article is more about the band but largely covers Vanderslice’s plans after their sudden breakup. I would argue that both of those run afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED. The others are album reviews which are reasonably informative but it’s worth pointing out that AllMusic has no biolgraphy of the band. —DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:30, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother pointing out a “biolgraphy” does not exist there? That does not lessen the value of the other coverage which you once again misrepresent. “The others are album reviews”. Some are, some are not. Your arguing that coverage of the band runs afoul of not inherited reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what that guide is actually saying. Coverage about the band is coverage of the band. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partial correction: I went through the five sources for which you provided blue links. The other apparent sources like The Daily Utah Chronicle, The Kalamazoo Gazette, etc. are not useful at this time unless you provide links. As for AllMusic, that site has a couple of brief album reviews, but without a band biography one can conclude that the site did not consider the band to be worthy of further research. Finally, you and I have been around here for similar amounts of time so you can dispense with high horse behavior like highlighing a minor typo and the condescending accusations of misunderstanding policies. —DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]