Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A II Z

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 no consensus. Petros471 13:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A II Z

This entry does not meet the criteria of WP:BAND. Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 01:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete going to have to agree with nom. No awards, no notable members...it looks like they only had one album. Stubbleboy 04:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain In light of conversation with Headshaker I am striking my vote of delete. The entry may fail to meet criteria of said WP:BAND, however he has convinced me that the article could be used on an encyclopedic level for future research from the linked page List of NWOBHM artists. --Stubbleboy 11:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The above is missing the point. The statements No awards, it looks like they only had one album are correct (Simon Wright was a notable member) but overlooks the fact that the band was influential within the New Wave Of British Heavy Metal. I suspect that the above two gentlemen are not authorities on this genre of music. If they were, they would not be making their arguments. Indeed, the origin of this disputed article was an attempt to add to and expand upon the list of bands including bands even more obscure than A II Z already cited as significant NWOBHM bands in the List of NWOBHM artists, written by someone (not me) who is an authority. I would add that another NWOBHM band not yet on that list and with even less success was a band called BLITZKRIEG, who no less than Metallica cite as an influence, and who covered their one significant track (also called "Blitzkrieg"). I intend to create an article about Blitzkrieg in the near future. To summarise, my argument is that this band was a significant force within the NWOBHM, which in general launched heavy metal as a major musical genre, and therefore historically represent along with contemporaries a turning point. The article actually needs upgrading by NWOBHM experts, not deletion, which I would view as the censorship of knowledge. I would like to read the views of genuine rock historians on this issue, particularly NWOBHM eyewitnesses and former NWOBHM journalists.

Headshaker 06:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The band isn't even mentioned on Simon Wright's page, who yes is definetly notable. They were never successful outside of Britain, so how does that make them encyclopedic? If anything mention on Simon Wright's page that he was in the band, but they don't need their own page. Stubbleboy 12:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Although a google search for "A II Z" music only returns 748 hits, much of that is CD vendors and reviews, so they're at least recognised. However, they completely fail to meet WP:BAND and it says in the article itself that they never acheived major success outside of Britain and that they vere very shortlived, hence my vote. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk Comparison of BitTorrent sites} 06:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The fact that the band is unknown outside of Britain is irrelevant because the NWOBHM was by definition a British phenomenon. The majority of NWOBHM bands never became known outside of that country. Several of those however, of which AIIZ should be included, were genuine originators of the sound which ultimately launched heavy metal as a worldwide genre. If this band is deleted as an article, then by implication the majority of the bands in the section List of NWOBHM artists are not eligible either. I am also therefore wasting my time researching those bands as it was my intention that every one should have their own article. Wikipedia would then have been a full reference for the history of this significant genre, a "one-stop shop" for everything there is to know. Thus there is more at stake here than the issue of this particular band. My understanding of the underlying principle of Wikipedia that it should indeed be such a one-stop shop of knowledge. Am I mistaken in this? Is finer detail to be excluded? If this is the case, which I believe would be tragically short-sighted, an alternative would be to give summaries within List of NWOBHM artists or to link out to external info sources (defeating the point of Wikipedia IMHO). I would be interested in other opinions from authorities of hard rock and heavy metal on this issue and indeed what my next move should be. Headshaker 07:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment In the absence of further comments or votes it would be a travesty if this article was sunk on the opinion of three unknowledgeable individuals. Surely it should be authorities on the genre of NWOBHM who should decide its worth. Headshaker 09:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please review WP:CIVIL as it is not nice to call people unknowledgeable. So our opinions differ, we are still entitled to them. The title in itself is unencyclopedic. Who is going to search for A II Z?? Stubbleboy 02:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment With regard to the first point, unless you can truthfully say you are an authority on the NWOBHM, the adjective is a statement of fact, not an insult, obviously limited to the context of this specific subject. I clearly never meant to imply you or the other two were unknowledgeable in general. Regarding the second point, yes you are of course entitled to your opinion, but I am equally entitled to challenge the credibility and credentials of your opinion. Regarding the third point, by this invalid argument bands such as UB40, AC/DC and JJ72 would also be "unencyclopedic". Regarding the fourth point, the answer is that people researching the NWOBHM in general would learn of the band at general articles such as List of NWOBHM artists and seek to find out more detail. I would refer you to the above comments as to what I'm trying to achieve. Headshaker 18:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Simon Wright. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have added the pertinent info from this article to Simon Wright. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It's nice that you're an expert on NWOBHM, Headshaker, but we can't just take your word for it. Find some more third-party reliable sources for the information and we can talk then. (The reference that's there is good, but we need more than one.) ColourBurst 18:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is a valid point. I generally like to launch articles and let others improve them, but in order to save the article and safeguard my long-term aim for an article on every significant NWOBHM band, I will do some digging. I would like to be given two weeks from this entry to do so. Headshaker 05:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - If this article is improved (wikified), I think it merits a spot of its own. It is my belief that any group which has an entry in the allmusic.com guide deserves an entry in Wikipedia. Why would you even use Wikipedia to find information on musical artists if Allmusic had a more comprehensive guide? -- Cielomobile ^minor7♭5 07:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the nominator, Gay Cdn, that they do not meet the criteria in WP:BAND. I see that three specific claims are offered in the article: (1) that they are especially popular amongst NWOBHM fans, (2) that their music is archetypal of the genre, and (3) that NO FUN AFTER MIDNIGHT is a NWOBHM cult classic and much-sought rarity. I think that WP:BAND makes (2) be a proper claim, so I'd be willing to listen if someone could offer third-party confirmation of that fact. But then they would apparently need to be a leading or most popular member of NWOBHM, and I didn't hear that anyone was claiming that. EdJohnston 03:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I respect the above for attempting to argue the case within the correct context, i.e. the genre of NWOBHM. With regard to the issue of third party confirmation, I've tried to provide this by greatly expanding the references, which now includes one literary source. The defence now rests and makes its closing remarks. I would ask the arbiting administrator to consider carefully the implications of the decision, as it affects the whole purpose of Wikipedia, as either an introductory reference to a field of study or a complete "one-stop shop". It feels wrong that I as an authority and a fan of the NWOBHM should now have to be fighting to defend an article as a result of the actions of someone who is neither. I perceive it as an attack on knowlege, and any attack on even small details of knowledge is to me reprehensible. Perhaps the AfD policy should be reviewed so that AfD's can only be raised and upheld by administrators with a knowledge of the wider subject. Headshaker 06:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I agree with you, but in this case, with the lack of sources, I know it'll probably be deleted. That's why I'm hoping a Re-direct will emerge instead. At least the info will still be on Wikipedia. If someone comes looking for this band, it will be re-directed to the musician, whose article I've edited to reflect the information about the band. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 17:37, 10 October 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.