Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enochian Theory

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. Keilana_(recall) 04:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enochian Theory

Enochian Theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Seemingly non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. Prod declined by creator. tomasz. 12:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not sure what guidelines you have been reading, but look at the references. A few articles in printed media, plus a batch of reviews ([1] [2] [3]) online. There's enough to get a fairly good article out of this, never mind enough to keep. J Milburn (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • same ones as you. i don't see how they pass any of the criteria you just linked. the print media are trivial mentions, the online ones aren't very good sources (blogs 'n' zines, as Paul Erik correctly characterised them). tomasz. 14:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I retract the comment. I'll accept that they are borderline, but I am leaning towards keep. J Milburn (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• I'm wondering why none of the references cited (including Rock & Metal and Music magazines) have an entry on Wikipedia. Sorry to be skeptical here. All the linked references appear to be blogs and webzines, which we do not usually take to be sound reliable sources in helping to establish notability. My skepticism also comes from my discovery that there is a complete absence of this band in a Google news archive search. At the moment at least, I would lean towards delete. see new comment below --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Obviously, I can't see the print media, but the ezines are fine- ezines are appropriate sources for minor metal bands. Blogs, no, they are never appropriate sources, but the ezines are fine. Yeah, nothing in the Google News archive- I'm not pretending these are famous (I had never heard of them before seeing this AfD, and I am not un-aquainted with the scene) just that they are notable. J Milburn (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Every day many bands are created with names which might create confusion by being confused with some real-world thing. For that reason, any article about a band with a name which sounds like it might be a real estate development, chemical compound, sex act, mutant animal, drink, religious movement, scientific theory or whatever, should have (band) appended to the name of the Wikipedia article. This should be moved to Enochian Theory (band) in the event it survives AFD, to avoid the wasting of time of those who might click on the article not realizing it is just a band. Edison (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. i have to disagree with this because i can't see why a real estate development, chemical compound, sex act, mutant animal, drink, religious movement, scientific theory or whatever should somehow be given priority over a band that has chosen the same word for their name. Let the —(band) disambiguation persist in cases where there genuinely is another thing sharing the name; otherwise the potential confusion with some real-world thing may be quickly solved by reading the article. tomasz. 17:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Switching to neutral because I may have been under a false impression that webzines were not considered reliable sources (see J Milburn's comment above). Also, a user added this link into the article which provides at least some evidence of coverage in the print media. I am still concerned about inadequate sourcing here (and I also have strong suspicions that one of the editors/defenders of the article, Mr B Bond has a conflict of interest here since he appears to be the same person adding updates at the band's official site), but think I should leave this to others to decide. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure about conflict of interest, but Mr B Bond seems to be acting in good faith, and if there is a conflict of interest, it does not seem to be having a negative effect on the article, so I consider that a moot point. According to the article, the band's music video has received airplay on the only three UK music channels on which a metal video would ever really find itself, and the article does need a little work (primarily because of Mr B Bond's unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policy, but we all need to learn somewhere!) but I am still leaning towards keep. J Milburn (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I have gone through the article and cleaned it up a little. I now I have the odd feeling I may have actually seen this band at some point- the name is familiar, and I have definitely seen SpeedTheory, who they toured with. In any case, I have noticed that the article mentions several big name magazines that have mentioned the band- if this is true, I think there is no doubt that they are notable. J Milburn (talk) 14:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm seeing aminor band, not a notable one. Mbisanz (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak delete -- it claims a UK-European tour is planned for 2008; has a CD out; but references can not be verified as they are dead links. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per Bearian. Cannot find independent, reliable sources to back up notability claims. Keeper | 76 20:27, 28 December 2007 (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.