Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asgard legionnaires
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Delete --RoySmith 02:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Asgard legionnaires
Band vanity... no evidence that they pass WP:MUSIC. The one thing that might be worthy of discussion is the claim that they are the first metal band to release anything (apparently a demo) in Doha. Honestly, I don't know if that's meaningful in and of itself... it certainly would be if they were signed to a reputable label, etc. But other evidence points more towards the typical story of a high school band that had some fun then the members grew up and the band split up ([1], they are broken up now) still with apparently no label releases. Not on AMG, very little on Google (though that's understandable since they're based in Qatar). The author's other contributions are mostly vandalism, but that is just of minor interest here. --W.marsh 00:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 05:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Non-noteable and article text hints at vanity. HackJandy 05:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as band vanity, no tours, no records. Herostratus 09:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. First of something is automatically notable. If they are truly the first such band from Doha, then they need to stay. Good old google with its 598 hits gives me a good starting spot. And here you go with a review. Might need some more verification, but we're not getting it from google. But the claims make it notable enough. Zordrac 09:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: First of something can be significant, but it depends, in a way, on whether it's a something that sets examples and paves the way. There isn't any evidence that there is now a Doha metal scene, nor that this is a venerated trailblazer. The band appears to have remained undistributed and uncharted. Geogre 12:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Given that WP:MUSIC is a guideline and not a policy, this is perhaps a great example of why it should remain a guideline - here's a band that doesn't fit WP:MUSIC, but is notable due to its significance of being the first band from Doha. Perhaps WP:MUSIC is the wrong rationale to judge them. Anyways, keep assuming proper verification. --badlydrawnjeff 14:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- I just don't know that being the "first" band is automatically notable without A) verification and B) any sign that being the first band had an impact. Say I formed a band in 1987 and billed it as the first death metal band in Kentucky... more people live here than in Doha. But we played a few shows in people's basements, had no releases, didn't spur a scene, no one really remembers us. Would we be notable? I think not... just typical band vanity. Now evidence that they had an impact on the music scene is obviously going to be harder to come by, becase they're in Qatar, not Kentucky. But still... considering the lack of releases, verification and the way this fits the typical high school band mold... --W.marsh 16:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, right, you said exactly the thing: It's Qatar, not Kentucky. Of course verification is important, and I'm adjusting my vote to reflect that as I should have before. Notability because of the culture and inherent impact is, IMO, important. --badlydrawnjeff 16:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Popularity is not everything. A lot of unpopular things have historical importance because of being the first of something - even if they did not subsequently influence anything. Firsts that influenced culture, like for example AC/DC was significant not due to its popularity (it wasn't all THAT popular) but because it was the first ever heavy metal band in Australia, whilst less popular bands such as Carcus (band) were if anything more influential because of being the first death metal band in the world, in spite of popularity. I can think of so many examples of hardly heard of things that are important because of being the first, and having historical importance. Zordrac 18:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, right, you said exactly the thing: It's Qatar, not Kentucky. Of course verification is important, and I'm adjusting my vote to reflect that as I should have before. Notability because of the culture and inherent impact is, IMO, important. --badlydrawnjeff 16:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- I just don't know that being the "first" band is automatically notable without A) verification and B) any sign that being the first band had an impact. Say I formed a band in 1987 and billed it as the first death metal band in Kentucky... more people live here than in Doha. But we played a few shows in people's basements, had no releases, didn't spur a scene, no one really remembers us. Would we be notable? I think not... just typical band vanity. Now evidence that they had an impact on the music scene is obviously going to be harder to come by, becase they're in Qatar, not Kentucky. But still... considering the lack of releases, verification and the way this fits the typical high school band mold... --W.marsh 16:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Given that WP:MUSIC is a guideline and not a policy, this is perhaps a great example of why it should remain a guideline - here's a band that doesn't fit WP:MUSIC, but is notable due to its significance of being the first band from Doha. Perhaps WP:MUSIC is the wrong rationale to judge them. Anyways, keep assuming proper verification. --badlydrawnjeff 14:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Indeed, I would suggest that hardly heard of things with historical relevance is precisely what an encyclopaedia is there for. If its something that we already know about, then we don't need to look it up, do we? I mean, who cares about looking up about ICQ? We already know about it because its enormously popular, well known, etc. You might care about the intricacies of how it came about or something, but other than that, who cares? I am much more interested in hearing about less heard-of things like about a planemo to describe Pluto and the 10th planet, or about that woman who was a natural conductor of electricity, because then we are learning something new. IMO those things are much more encyclopaedic than a popular thing such as ICQ. Zordrac
- All of this is true, but the bottom line is that something actually has to have an influence, even if it's obscure to popular culture. We can just assume they're influential without any evidence... and as far as I can tell there's no evidence that they're more than the typical highschool myspace band that gets voted deleted all the time. --W.marsh 21:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, I would suggest that hardly heard of things with historical relevance is precisely what an encyclopaedia is there for. If its something that we already know about, then we don't need to look it up, do we? I mean, who cares about looking up about ICQ? We already know about it because its enormously popular, well known, etc. You might care about the intricacies of how it came about or something, but other than that, who cares? I am much more interested in hearing about less heard-of things like about a planemo to describe Pluto and the 10th planet, or about that woman who was a natural conductor of electricity, because then we are learning something new. IMO those things are much more encyclopaedic than a popular thing such as ICQ. Zordrac
-
-
-
-
- Delete. I'm all for leaning over backwards for music groups from non-English speaking countries, but these guys are into Heavy Metal and have their own website, so they're not traditional musicians unsophisticated in the ways of the Internet. They still look too non-notable for me. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- 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.
