Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crush 40

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The result was Keep - Nomination effectively withdrawn by nominator. Nick (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crush 40

Article has not established notability, does not meet Wikipedia quality guidelines, is missing citations and contains original research, and is a breeding ground for hoaxes, frauds, and original research. User:Radman622 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Crush 40 is a real legitimate band that has a following here in America. If I could have shown you their old Myspace page before it was hacked, you would've seen about 5000 friends to them on myspace alone. While their albums have never actually been released in America (because the self-titled Crush 40 album was released by Frontiers Records in Europe and the rest of their tracks are on Japanese soundtracks), they do have a following. In addition to this, their works in popular video games, especially in the Sonic the Hedgehog series of video games, are noteworthy parts of their respective games. I should try to find a site that reviews a couple of these games that has something to say about the music in order to prove this, but if you look around, you'll find it. It is their popularity and expanded work in video games, as well as their 2 individual albums and game tracks, that makes them notable. Now, I realize that the article has problems, and I'm trying to fix them. I'm really trying to fix the citations problem and the cleanup issues and I've already expanded the article's history section. I'm just having trouble finding citations for more recent stuff since they haven't released an album by themselves since 2003 (though there's all the soundtracks) and what I can find is usually on some site where several pages are in one link in the browser or some other screwy thing like that (if someone can please help me find citations for their later works, HELP!) It may be worthy of note that many of the citations I put up myself apply to one or more paragraphs, but since I'm not experienced at Wikipedia editing, I'm not sure if that's a proper format. Just take a look at the citations numbered 1, 2, and 3, and you'll see that 1 and 2 are a full paragraph of reference, and #3 is from all three paragraphs in that subsection. Other citations that weren't added by me, I can't tell you anything about those or uncited material in sections I haven't gotten to yet (I've really only worked on the history section). I've also tried to take down some of the original research, especially in the albums and genres section. I know a site that I can reference for the genres section to be more validated, but I can't cite it because of the several pages in one link problem. As for the whole "hoax" you claim with them releasing a new album, it really was up on their old myspace page, but since that site was hacked, it has not been placed up anywhere else and nobody really knows much about it for now, so for now there's nothing. If anybody out there wants to help me fix this page, please speak up! I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor, but I've been trying to save the article with some rewriting, adding of citations, and so on. I see no reason to kill the article when it is notable (though it needs more rewriting to establish it) and can be repaired. I just don't have the experience to do it all by myself, though I'm trying to. User:Redphoenix526 01:22, 12 January 2008

Comment You really think we can save this article, but that doesn't change the chief argument against the article, which was "It has failed to establish why the band is notable." What makes Crush 40 (an obscure band) notable. I know you have been trying to save it but we'll need some more input here before I can close the afd thing. User:Radman622 07:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, I am having trouble finding sources that give credit to the people who listen to Crush 40. One example was their old Myspace page which had about 5000 friends, but since the temporary page has come up, they haven't allowed any requests purposely. I want to make it known how Crush 40 is renowned in certain circles, such as the Sonic the Hedgehog fan community. The problem is that I can't prove this with a citation. What we do know from citable material (which isn't up yet) for their next feature is that their song "Live and Learn" will be in the upcoming Super Smash Bros. Brawl, and Masahiro Sakurai says the song has "many fans" in the page. But it hardly qualifies as a citation. If I could establish this point of Crush 40's following in certain circles with evidence (which doesn't seem to exist anymore), I think we would have some notability in the article. But as I said, I can't back up my claim with citations because they're simply not there. If anyone out there can find some evidence to help back this up, speak up! User:Redphoenix526 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.73.23 (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Also read my "talk page" message. I think this article is mostly cleaned up, that I sort of rashly decided to wash my hands and be done with it, and that the article can and will be saved. Note to admin: the afd desicion was made without considering the many newly made improvements to the article. The only problems left which need to be addressed are some minor cleanup, a little notability establishment, and maybe some more citations (although I think Redphoenix has done an excellent job on this, and that one can hardly expect more). Let's just say that when I hastily put this up as an article for deletion, I didn't follow the rules (I didn't really know them very well at the time). Please remove the afd tag and archive this disscussion, unless the article is in YOUR opinion, beyond saving. Thanx admin. User:Radman622 07:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a bunch of editing by myself and Radman622, the article's notability is far less in question than it was before and the article is fairly well cleaned up, though I would agree it could use a little more. The hoax issue has also been resolved with a few comments on the talk page for the article, and most, if not all, of the original research has either been removed or backed up with citations. I agree with Radman622 on this one, there is no reason anymore for this article to be up for deletion. Redphoenix526 (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2008 (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.