Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demilich (band) (2nd nomination)

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. Shanel 01:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demilich (band)

This page was previously deleted and has since been recreated, possibly in multiple locations (see [1]). I tagged it for speedy deletion under CSD:G4 (reposting previously deleted material) and CSD:A7 (article about a band not asserting the band's notability). This has been disputed by Johnson542 and additionally, I suspect the material is not a verbatim copy of the previously deleted material anyway. Delete, possibly speedy, per WP:MUSIC. See the article's talk page for further information. Stifle 13:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Keep, and thanks for the improvements. Stifle 18:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: This is reposted deleted material from a unanimous proper Afd and should have gone through WP:DRV. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually the first AFD is moot. It made the common mistake of thinking that "two full length" albums on a major label is *the* standard of WP:MUSIC. That's actually just one of many criteria, that are allowed, and not the most relevant in this case. The AFD completely ignored the fact the band's music was used by another notable band. There was *no* discussion of what writing about the band existed (it's ok to reject some writing as trivial, but the AFD did not discuss the matter at all). Now, I fully understand the reason for original deletion. The article was horribly incomplete. But the fact an article was incomplete, doesn't mean it should never be completed. --Rob 17:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Can't say I agree with this. It's not a nom.'s responsibility to scour the Internet trying to find reasons to keep it. That's the author's job. The article looked like garbage and it was deleted. Unanimously I might add - meaning even the author didn't bother trying to save it. Go ahead and keep it now - I wouldn't have even nominated it the way it currently is - but don't blame me for getting it deleted it in the first place. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as CSD A7. --Terence Ong 13:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? Can you elaborate? +Johnson542 00:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I have recently become aware that the page was listed on WP:DRV here, after it had been recreated. I'm not sure where to go with this, as I don't believe in venue shopping. Stifle 15:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • AfD is the place to come if something exists and may qualify for deletion under the deletion policy. Unlike Deletion Review, which has some kind of numerical voting system, AfD operates by rough consensus. --Tony Sidaway 16:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I haven't followed the saga of this article's previous deletion, but I have a large metal collection which does include this album. The band was notorious in the 90s for having a vocal delivery style unlike any of its peers. Googling for "demilich" and "vocals" returns a lot of other album reviews that make reference to demilich, like these [2] [3]. Also note the band's page on the German wikipedia (link just added) Kymacpherson 15:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete NON-NOTABLE BAND J.J.Sagnella 16:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? Can you elaborate? +Johnson542 00:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Has one released album (first released 1993 on Necropolis Records, rereleased 1996 on Repulse Records, rereleased again on Century Media, 2005). This obviously isn't a garage band, and the frequent rereleases, particularly the latest one on Century Media, who also signed Blind Guardian, Cryptopsy, Iced Earth, Nightwish and Lacuna Coil, confirm the band's cult status. Is currently signed to Morbid Thoughts Records, toured in the fall, and has a new album due for release this year, so I don't see how removing this verifiable information would improve Wikipedia's music coverage. --Tony Sidaway 16:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kymacpherson. Kappa 16:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep as per all above Jcuk 16:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:MUSIC (separately these points are week, but together they're good enough):
  • "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above." - A song of theirs was covered by Fleshcrawl [4]
  • "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture."
  • "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in verifiable media." - Links in the article --Rob 17:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above and per reasons at DRV. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's verifiable, and they even come reasonably close to meeting WP:MUSIC. This isn't just some garage band. Friday (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The original AFD nominator didn't show a complete grasp of WP:NMG by stating that a band should have 2 albums on a major label to pass. That's obviously not the case. The indy release and re-release, with another en route, plus the tour + press, is enough to squeak in. PJM 19:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. They've got a few U.S. shows scheduled, which for them is international, which makes them notable by WP:MUSIC.
• Strong Keep. The page was deleted in the past without weighing the evidence. It falls under the many of the requirements for non-mainstream music (note that a band is NOT required to have two albums, as stated by wknight94 in previous deletion, this is just one possible criteria for notability. The band does not even fall under this category. see WP:MUSIC. Band notability has been proven in the talk page for the demilich band site. +Johnson542 22:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kymacpherson. Dysfunktion 22:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: For the record, my original nom. didn't say two albums are "required" - it said that two albums is the standard. While the article is a vast improvement over what it was, I still maintain that if we had an article for every death metal band with a single album from a label that was so shaky that it went out of business, we'd be flooded with them. I have relatives who would have an outside shot... —Wknight94 (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Good question. How many of them do we have about which a verifiable article can be written? If there are 10,000 such, let's start to worry when we have 10,001 such articles. But I strongly suspect that bands of this kind of pedigree are much thinner on the ground. In fact, looking at our category "Heavy metal musical groups", we seem to have barely 200, which is laughable. We really shouldn't be deleting articles about those that we have. --Tony Sidaway 00:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Yes, 200 is very few. And Demilich have done more than release one album; they are currently on an international tour. (not to mention the fact that their one album has been rereleased on two major record labels). Is this enough consensus to keep the page?
      • Comment: As long as the articles are halfway decent ones (like this one has become), I agree with Tony Sidaway completely. But, perusing the http://www.metal-archives.com database, I could certainly live without quite a few of those. Like do we need seven articles to cover each of the death metal bands called "Cremation"? Or five articles to cover the "Crematorium"s? Anyway, this isn't the place for this discussion - I just wanted to make it clear that I do have a decent grasp of WP:BAND and the previous article for this band was definitely nowhere near it. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. So can I remove the deletion header on the page? Are you revoking your deletion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnson542 (talk • contribs) .
          • Just leave it there. Eventually, an admin will remove it. Also, this AFD doesn't "belong" to one person, so it's not as simple as one person ending it. There's three people who still indicated they want a delete. Anyway, the decision to do an early close is best left to an uninvolved party. The best thing you can do, is add as much relevant sources and information to the article. The only reason this was deleted in the first place, is that it was never completed. You can avoid future problems (like future deletion nominations) by completing the article. --Rob 02:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — Per Rob and Tony Sidaway. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  March 3, 2006, 01:11 (UTC)
• Keep.[5] Get rid of the reviews maybe. -- Krash (Talk) 01:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Original deletion was really out-of-process; two-album rule is sufficient, but not necessary, condition for notability, and it's certainly not a standard to be accepted with Blind Faith. Monicasdude 02:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Out-of-process" meaning what? Were the three steps of Afd not followed correctly? Was it closed prematurely? Which part of the process was not followed? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I feel the need to point out that Blind Faith was all notable prior to becoming Blind Faith. -- Krash (Talk) 20:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • He was just pointing out that the 2 album rule doesn't always apply. +Johnson542 00:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Tony Sidaway. -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:12, 6 March 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.