Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azriel (band)

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 was Delete --JForget 22:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Azriel (band)

Azriel (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Band with one album just out on a smallish independent label. No evidence of significant coverage - 'references' include 1 short interview on a fansite/webzine, and lots of trivial mentions, MySpace, forums, etc. Main claim to fame appears to be appearing 4th on the bill at a small metal 'festival' at a small venue in Leeds. A google search found nothing to indicate there's anything to be added to the article. Delete. Michig (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been created before by several users. However it has been deleted a few times. Since the article has been created several times this tells us that people want to view the page, therefore giving it a purpose. And since wikipedia is an encyclopedia, why can't it have an article on Azriel (Band), which people are wanting to view. The band has appeared in several popular music magazines and will appear more in the future as as User:Michig has pointed out they have just released an album on a small but popular independent label. The article does not state that the bands main claim to fame was appearing at a venue in Leeds as wrongly suggested by User:Michig. There claim to fame is their popular discography and touring with bigger bands, which increased Azriel's fan base. When i searched for Azriel (Band) in www.google.co.uk a found a few pages which were about the band. I would also like to point out this small music venue which Ariel has played in the past is not small [1], some of User:Michig created articles of bands have played there within the past year. So i find it ironic that he insults this venue. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. If it's been deleted several times in the past, that's probably a good indication that the band are not (yet) sufficiently notable. The references show no evidence that the band have appeared in 'several popular music magazines'. I was not 'insulting' The Cockpit - I'm sure it's a great venue, and I like small venues, but it is a fairly small venue which used to be the "Cock of the North" pub, and I was just clarifying the scale of the festival that took place there.--Michig (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Well a lots of big bans have played there before. I can understand why the page was deleted before, however i took upon my {{self to create the article yesterday as the band released an album. If the page was to remain up, many people would view it and edit it. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It is not necessary to provide sources showing that they pass WP:BAND to avoid deletion read WP:CSD#A7 Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you're confusing the speedy deletion guidelines with the AfD ones. Claiming significance may be sufficient to avoid the article being speedied, but it's nowhere near enough here.--Michig (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Well why is any music artist significant to go on wikipedia. You yourself have created articles on many bands, which i have never heard of and could not find in google. I don't understand why you would go out of your way to try and have this article deleted. This article is significant as it the band is becoming really popular, they have just released an album and have featured in several media magazines, therefore according to wikipedia making the band notable. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Bands are significant enough to have an article here if they pass WP:BAND.--Michig (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You have told me to read that many of times and i have. And by reading that i found out that Azriel are significant as they pass WP:BAND. Ijanderson977 (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - The band seems to barely pass WP:BAND. Where it goes wrong is in the WP:RS area.--Pmedema (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
This is because the several magazines which the band have appeared in, are not uploaded onto the internet, so is hard to get references. However yesterday the band released an album yesterday, so im sure there will be more references to add to this article in the near future. Ijanderson977 (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: While I see that User:Ijanderson977 is devoted to defending the article, it would be helpful if he explained what elements of WP:BAND this group passes, and justifies the explanation. I don't see it.  RGTraynor  18:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as magazine
I have given reference to the magazines which the band has featured in. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Response: Errr, no. What you have posted is a pile of links to blogs, bulletin boards and websearch results. To quote from WP:V, "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." By contrast, "[q]uestionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that ... are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Have there been any newspaper articles about this group? Mentioned on the BBC? Also, given Michig's info, change my view to Delete and Salt, please.  RGTraynor  20:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The NME link indicates no coverage. No ref given for Kerrang, others are trivial mentions.--Michig (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You need to refer to the proper criteria at WP:MUSIC --neonwhite user page talk 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You can tell from the article history who vandalised it - it was an anonymous editor using BT Broadband. I hope you're not suggesting that anyone involved in this discussion vandalised the article. And it's patently obvious that WP:BAND is not satisfied here.--Michig (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why do you hope that i am not suggesting that anyone involved in this discussion vandalised the article? Just out of interest, do you have BT Broadband? Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Probably because it is a hostile, unwarranted accusation that blows holes in WP:AGF.  RGTraynor  16:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Eusebeus (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Only apparent claim to notability is that it is signed, but the label doesn't seem significant enough. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 01:55, 4 April 2008 (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.