User talk:JzG/And the band played on...
Nice page, I like it! (Radiant) 12:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I just spent nearly an hour trying to find this again. —Cryptic 07:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Past history
[edit]The essay says By this time it has become virtually impossible for any new article on this band to survive a deletion debate, even when they make the front cover of Rolling Stone, because the relentless use of Wikipedia for vanity has pissed the community off to such an extent.
If that is true, then those who decline to approve an article on what would have becoming a clearly notable band are acting just as disruptively as the people who created the promotional articles. A past history of promotion should never bar an article that is in fact neutral and about a clearly notable topic. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- 2 years late but I'm glad to see someone sharing a similar point of view. This essay seems to justify and advocate for bias and behaviour that is harmful to Wikipedia as a community. I can't name how many times a neutral article on a presumably notable topic has been deleted with the community citing this essay. People fail to consider that the popularity of a topic in itself might be the reason behind repeated creation attemps. Célestin Denis (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think this essay promotes the behaviour described in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yellowmarkers (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)