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. Also, I'll downgrade to semi-protection for now, but let me know if more is needed. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite Spies[edit]

Satellite Spies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unusual situation: I am proposing deletion not because of the subject but because I think the article is a net negative - the work involved in maintaining it and protecting it from COI edit-warring outweighs its value.

"Satellite Spies" was a band formed in New Zealand in 1984. Two principals were Deane Sutherland and Mark Loveys. In 1987 they split up. Each of them claims that the other one left, so that each thinks that he owns the rights, and at times there have been two bands calling themselves Satellite Spies. Unbelievably, 25 years later they are still quarrelling about it, and this article has become the battleground. I became involved through answering an "adminhelp" to remove a defamatory statement after the article had been protected (on the wrong version, needless to say). While the article has been protected the argument, involving both of the principals and their supporters, has raged on the talk page. After a time I archived the talk page and asked them to shut up, but they have continued at interminable length. If you want to take the risk of your head exploding, you can read all the accusations and counter-accusations at Talk:Satellite Spies/Archive 1 and Talk:Satellite Spies.

The band scrapes past WP:BAND because of a song It must be Love from one of its incarnations, which reached the NZ Top 40 in 1999. However, as an IAR measure, I propose deletion, and salting the title. A reliably sourced and uncontentious version will be extremely short, something like User:JohnCD/Spies draft (Thanks to Tomwsulcer (talk) who produced a first shot at this). If it is ever unprotected the edit wars will resume; and when it is re-protected they will continue squabbling on the talk page. As the argument has been going on for 25 years, it is unlikely to end any time soon, but there is no reason for Wikipedia to provide a battleground. Delete and salt and let them squabble somewhere else. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the nominator's frustration at this battleground, but I don't see this as a reason for deletion. I would favour a trimmed down version of the article such as Tomwsulcer's draft, kept protected, and vigorous patrolling of the talk page per WP:FORUM with blocking of offending parties.-gadfium 00:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot omit the single and album that put them on the map in 1985, "Destiny in Motion". I say delete it because it's all wrong. Glyn Tucker, Reaction Records NZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.114.23 (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The single, "Destiny in Motion" first charted 8/9/85 and was on the chart for 10 weeks. It peaked at no. 14 in the weeks of 6/10/85 and 13/10/85. Source RIANZ official Top 50 charts. (see RIANZ on Wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.114.23 (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section called "Links to on-line resources" to the Talk page to assist in the creation of the reliably sourced and uncontentious version. Please be wary of the self published sites of the principals (which are pointed out in the list) and also be wary of muzic.net.nz which publishes material supplied by the individual bands. I agree with the concept of the reliably sourced and uncontentious version (so long as it is) and agree it should be locked down. Boatie62 (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not ask the person at Reaction Records who managed Satellite Spies' recording career from inception untill 1988 when the bulk of their recorded works were produced? It seems that simple. Come on guys, get this done, and get it right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdie2 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in lock down. Not worth the effort. NealeFamily (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and indefinitely semi-protect. Meets WP:BAND on the strength of "Destiny in Motion" (I have no recollection whatsoever of the other alleged hit) but all post-1987 material should be pruned to a note that since the band broke up in 1987 other bands of that name have been formed by one or other of the principals. Daveosaurus (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite full protection is a very unsatisfactory state; an alternative would be to block any of the involved parties who return to editing the article. There is a precedent in the Bogdanov affair, an earlier case where an external dispute was imported into Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee's remedy was that all involved parties were topic-banned from editing the article and that any new account which started editing it would be assumed involved. After a time that had to be extended to cover the article talk page. JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2012 (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.
More