Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theocracy (band)

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; although I was quite impressed - in light of the off-wiki discussion - at the level of policy-based debate that occured in this debate, I was unable to determine a solid concensus. - Daniel.Bryant 10:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Theocracy (band)

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

ATTENTION! If you came here because Ultimate Metal pointed you here, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Does not currently meet WP:N standards, specifically WP:MUSIC/WP:BAND. I had let this go for awhile hoping for more content on notability, but have not seen any. Within the past day, I placed an {{importance}} tag on the page. This was removed along with an edit summary of to "please do not put this tripe on here again." I felt that a WP:PROD tag would meet with the same hostility, so I have listed for deletion to gain other peoples opinions whether this should stay. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 06:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 20:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, but willing to change opinion if sources that are reliable and not just interviews can be found. I can't find any, though. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Change to keep per secondary source citations brought up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• strong keep--E tac 06:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• comment in what way do they not meet notability requirements? Playing at ProgPower is extremeley notable for a band of this genre, especially for a Christian metal band. They also appeared on the cover of the leading Christian metal magazine. Can't get much more notable than that in that particular genre can you? Reguarding the above comment, sources for what?--E tac 06:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment notability is established by non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources which are not affiliated with the article's subject. Sometimes being popular indicates that such sources are likely to exist-if they do, for example, if you know of a magazine or newspaper that covered the band-please cite them, and I'll happily change my mind! "Notable" does not mean "popular", "well-known", or "successful"-though all those things can make establishment of notability more likely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment This page is already linked to from the article and the prog power thing is already sourced --E tac 06:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment This I see. However, what we'd be looking for is in-depth coverage of the band itself, not just a name drop or "who features them", or something that mentions them in passing but really isn't about them. The article also suffers from a lot of advertising. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • comment advertising? well that could be discussed and removed without putting the article up for deletion right? You know you could find a thousand band articles on wikipedia that don't have the "in depth coverage" you are looking for sourced either nor should it be required if you have proof that they meet any requirements of notablity. Being featured on a magazine cover and being part of a large festival generally known to be for the top bands of their genre seems to be enough by itself in my opinion to prove that at the very least they are one of the more notable bands within their genres. Just because a band isn't mainstream shouldn't prevent it from retaining notability. When was the last time you heard power metal or progressive metal on the radio or read an article about them in the newspaper or saw a documentary about a band within that genre on tv? Nonetheless a Christian metal band within that genre? For that matter what about black metal? Hardly any bands in that genre are on major labels or recieve any kind of media coverage at all yet there are tons of them on wikipedia? and they should be because somone who is interested in that subject should be entitled to find information about them here, Just like anyone who is interested in reading about a band like Theocracy.--E tac 06:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment The source need not necessarily be a mainstream one! A magazine that does more specialized coverage in this area, or music criticism that focuses specifically on this genre, would work fine. As to the advertising, yes it can be, which is why I mentioned that as a secondary concern-that in itself is not a reason for deletion unless the whole article is a blatant ad, which here is not the case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment It has already been proven that they were the cover story for magazine who does just that which is somewhat hard to properly source since it is not an online article, also these may or may not be considered noteworthy under current policy but there are tons of metal sites that have reviewed this album or interviewed the band. I am not really sure what makes a internet publication noteworthy or not though.--E tac 06:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment It looks like that magazine is reliable, so I'm going to change to a keep. I can certainly help you cite that as a source if that's a problem, or see WP:CITE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 07:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I'm not convinced that one cover in a tightly genre-based magazine is enough to pass WP:MUSIC. This entry has been deleted for the same reason once before and I can't really see what's changed since. The creator's attitude doesn't help much either - I went looking for Ghits (found about 15 that weren't myspaces etc) but did find this page. Hmm. I'm also willing to be convinced though. EliminatorJR 07:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment Funny that blog you brought up is over 2 years old, I didn't even know about this band then and I don't think I had begun to edit anything on wikipedia nor is my name Christopher and at that point they hadn't appeared on the cover of the magazine nor had they played at ProgPower. What is wrong with my "attitude"? I have been perfectly civil in this discussion and I think it was quite rude of you to refer to me as having one. Also isn't the fact that it is "tightly genre based" kind of the point? They are in a genre that doesn't recieve a lot of mainstream press so of course that is going to be where you would find them if they are notable within that genre, especially when they are feautured on the cover.--E tac 08:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Apologies if the blog article wasn't you, but your reaction to the tags that were placed on the article today were poor. You wrote "please do not put this tripe on here again", and later "grow up moeron, I don't know what your beef is with this article". No-one likes their work being AfD'd, but without the procedures Wikipedia would sink under the weight of worthless articles. Despite this, having thought about it I'm going to change my vote to Weak Delete - I don't think the band has quite enough to pass WP:MUSIC yet, but it's not far off. EliminatorJR 08:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
      • comment Well I don't really appreciate the way User:Moeron goes about things here and yeah I probably shouldn't have reacted like I did and I apologize to him if he is reading this, but I really think he could benefit from reading this, especially the 5th paragraph under "fundamentals".--E tac 08:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
      • comment ...and yes before anyone adds anything I understand that I can be one to, however my main problem is when people just go around quoting policy, posting templates about policy on my talk page without taking the time to really discuss the issue in actual words. Also normaly when I get confrontational it is because I am trying to better the project and rather than studying up on every single policy and treating it as canon and getting rid of everything not perfectly in line with it, I try and edit using common sense. Also I realize some of my problems with the user have been with image copyrights, I really don't fully understand this policy and if rather than taging the image and puting a template on my page, Moeron would actually try and communicate with me like an actual person and not a bot it might actually help me understand the policy so I could no longer be violating it. Also it seems a lot of the band articles on wikipedia have images uploaded with similar tags which makes me feel like I am being unfairly singled out.--E tac 08:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep AdmiralTreyDavid 19:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Theocracy played at the largest progressive and power metal festive in the western hemisphere last year... If that doesn't count for something, then I don't know what does. They're a really new band, and they're rising quickly in the world of Progressive metal. The founder, Matt Smith, started writing the first music in 2002, the first albumw as released in 2003, and by 2006 they were esteemed enough to play in ProgPower USA... They're as relevant if not more relevant to hudnreds of bands on Wikipedia. If you delete the article now, it'll only have to be recreated as they grow much more popular. AdmiralTreyDavid 19:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:Just because they played at a major festival doesn't make them notable right away, just like every band that plays Ozzfest, Austin City Limits, Bonnaroo, South by Southwest, ect. shouldn't have it's own page based solely on that. You say "They're a really new band, and they're rising quickly in the world of Progressive metal" and that is a factor. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; one cover story in this genre is little to go on, as per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. The band is welcome to have a page once they become more notable in their scene with multiple, non-trivial reliable sources, but as it stands now, they are still in the process of getting there. I have no problem with the group having a page like you say once they grow more popular. As for the other bands that are included on Wikipedia, plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 06:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment:Please see Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument and it is not a "crystal ball" statement as you claim as there is evidence that points to the fact that they are a rising force in their genres.--E tac 13:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Though the genre is small (especially for the Heavens Metal fanzine) HM Magazine is a reliable source, and a cover appearance indicates in-depth coverage. Based on the other information presented, I would not necessarily be convinced, but this source is enough to sway me. It does, however, need to be properly sourced. See template:cite journal. Dan, the CowMan 06:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: as mentioned at WP:N, WP:MUSIC, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, there should be multiple sources on the band itself (ie, not an album or specific show, but on the band itself). -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 06:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep --Athensbum 05:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC) The debut album has been reviewed by dozens of print & online publications, and TWICE by none other than well-known critic Martin Popoff (once in BW&BK and another mag), in addition to the HM cover story. As for copyright issues on the photographs. . . I have taken most of the photos used by the band on the Web site, in the album booklet and so on. Matt and I are both more than happy to grant usage for these images on Wikipedia. I'd be happy to address any questions about the pictures used. Anyway, to the point: following are a list of links to just a handful of positive as well as negative (balance?) reviews and articles about Theocracy.

Positive: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], #26 on Victory Zine's top 70 songs: [7], [8], [9]

Negative: [10], not so much negative as not really positive: [11], and that's all I came across in 10 pages of Googling. . .

• Comment Moeron you do realize that WP:MUSIC does say "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted", I think enough proof of the bands notabiltiy has been established, even if they barely would make it under the policy (which is greatly biased towards commercial music which this band is obviously not). When you put it all into perspective the band is clearly notable enough to be on wikipedia. I don't really see what you are trying to prove here, nor do I see how this is beneficial to the project.--E tac 10:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Hey there! Oh, yeah, I do realize that, but the policy that preceeds WP:MUSIC is WP:N. "Commerical music" may be biased in your opinion on Wikipedia, but there are many bands that aren't like that that pass notability, such as those that have played ProgPower such as one of my favorite bands, Sonata Arctica. Theocracy just isn't there yet. What, specifically, is the proof here? I have already mentioned above why playing at ProgPower doesn't exclusively make them notable in-and-of itself. As for the magazine, that is one source. There should be multiple sources, as per WP:N and WP:V. Also, please WP:AGF; I am not here on a WP:POINT and never have in my nearly 12,000 edits. I am just trying to make Wikipedia better; everything can't be on Wikipedia and must adhere to the WP:FIVE. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Again, don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument. An above user also mentioned they have also been reviewed by a well known music critic. Just because something isn't online doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I am sure it could be properley sourced. Also what about this section in WP:MUSIC, Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city. It is rather vague isn't it? How many other Christian Power metal bands from that area are there? How many of them are on magazine covers and recieving any type of coverage at all? How many are playing in the largest prog/power festival in the western hemisphere as one user mentioned above?--E tac 22:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Exactly, you are starting to understand what I mean! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 22:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, this does appear to meet WP:MUSIC now with the addition of reliable sources. (jarbarf) 00:43, 24 February 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.