Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choronzon (Music project)

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 Keep the rewrite. Deathphoenix 16:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Choronzon (Music project)

If I understood correctly tihis is a music/multimedia project done with a capable computer and access to a CD-writer. non notable.delete. Melaen 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn hard drive recording, "at least until discs can be pressed" as the article puts it. Ruby 01:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because, having read it twice, I still can't see what the supposed claim to notability is. These guys seem to believe pretty sincerely in themselves, b ut I don't see a lot of evidence of external interest. Could be wrong, not my genre and all, but until then I can't tell the difference between this and PR. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep/Rewrite: You'd never know it from the article but the American/P. Emerson Williams version of this band has released four full-length albums - and at least three of them are available on Amazon. So the band is apparently notable. The article is just written so poorly that it's hard to tell. I would've voted Delete/Rewrite but there's some interesting info in the article if you read hard enough and that shouldn't be lost. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I threw in a discography from http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=4442. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep (wonderful job with the rewrite) --Melaen 16:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: As original writer of article I do not understand what was so "poorly written" about it. Though the discography is appreciated (I had meant to add it myself) to have everything about the history of the project blanked out reduces any of the identifying characteristics of the project. And it is a project, not a "band" insofar as the music is not conventional and the members do not play live shows. Please inform me if I've broken some Wikipedia rule in posting this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psychaotic (talk • contribs) .
  • No offense but it was fairly confusing the way it was. It was also very non-standard. The standard is to give a short, sweet introduction and then try to give some history. And the quantity of history should be relative to the importance of the band. No one's ever heard of this band so it doesn't make sense to write a longer article for it than a more well-known band. This was getting into deeper detail than I think most wanted to hear. Maybe that's just me though - when I read biographies on bands' websites, I usually bail-out from sheer boredom after about a paragraph - and that's for bands I love. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The way I figure it, especially in the digital milieu "significance" is becoming more and more subjective and the grounds for determining it are hazy. I felt that the history, in this case, is part of what makes the project significant. Have you ever heard of another band or project that formed from more than one individual using the same (obscure) name and then deciding to collaborate? Or a band with occult referents that had not one but two incidents of natural disasters following completions of their works? I appreciate your constructive criticism here (just saying something is poorly written is not constructive crit imho) but as far as "deeper detail" goes, what else would someone want when they look up something in an encyclopedia? If one merely wants a definition they go for a dictionary. I'd have gone on for three or four screens of text that would've been one thing; I consciously and conscientiously kept it pretty simple. I don't want to be a pain in the rear (I imagine this place is full of idiotic, interminable time-wasting arguments and I do not want this to become one of same) but I would like to replace some of the information that the rewrite discarded - particularly the above information as it is of primary significance - and it is my hope that if I do so in a more succinct fashion that it will not be hosed off. Psychaotic 00:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That sounds like a plan. If you caught the end of my earlier sentence: "there's some interesting info in the article if you read hard enough and that shouldn't be lost". I think it's all in the presentation. Some of that may have been better suited in an "Interesting facts" section rather than being the core of the overall article. Basically, the core of every musical band article should be the music. In this case, the music got drowned out by the bio. That's probably the way I should have said it in the first place so I apologize if I offended. I'd say go ahead and put whatever you want in there and you'll probably have other pairs of eyes making sure the point of the article isn't lost. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —This user has left wikipedia 10:11 2006-02-02
  • Comment: Huh? The article's been rewritten and even the nominator changed his/her vote. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2006 (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.