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. The band seems to be on the "up-and-coming" spectrum of music, but the sources provided are fairly weak- two geocities sites and two reviews with questionable editorial oversight. No prejudice against recreation if better sourcing appears in the future.-Wafulz 20:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frosthold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I have nominated this band's page for deletion because I suspect they fail WP:N. This page was originally prodded, but the prod was contested by regular editor Chubbles1212. However, I was later surprised when trying to create this AfD, as it turns out the page was AfDed before, and the outcome of that vote was delete - does that make this a speedy deletion per CSD:G4? Anyway, sorry to the editor who'll have to fix this nomination up. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That depends on whether the content is substantially identical and that the previous reason for deletion has not been addressed. If both of these criteria apply, then it can be speedied. Either way, it still fails to meet the strict interpretation of WP:BAND, so it should be deleted. Adrian M. H. 14:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the previous article pertaining to the first AfD - it seems the page history was deleted along with the page. I'd say the article's assertion of their notability is substantially identical to what it was before, though. Anyway, I'm not demanding a speedy, I guess; a good long AfD discussion provides me with more social interaction. :-) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only an admin can check the history of deleted articles. The logs link on this page can confirm that it was deleted (and subsequently re-deleted as a repost back in May). Morgan Wick 16:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest salting if this AFD results in another deletion. Adrian M. H. 16:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted before because it was an advert. The page is completely different this time, cites sources and is written from an independent viewpoint. Your prod was removed because Chubbles1212 stated that the article has "enough press references to show at least a little notability", so instead you just nominate the article for deletion? That says to me you just don't like the band... In fact, even your talk page says "I'm here to read about stuff like the origins of the Pamirs, or about Wifi jacking - not about your stupid band and stuff." I think perhaps just because they're a band, you want it gone from Wikipedia. I think that's a little unfair to those who have actually found articles like this a useful reference such as myself. --LowerTheFlags 01:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt as there is no evidence in this article, either, that they pass WP:MUSIC. If they become notable at a later date they may petition deletion review for an opportunity at reinstatement. But reliable sources are needed. --Dhartung | Talk 17:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see any notability being built through reliable sources at this point, and I'm getting pretty good at turning stuff like that up for British bands. WP:MUSIC is not satisfied. I suppose salting would help in keeping us from this exercise again, but don't think it's all that necessary. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - are those reviews reliable or not? I don't know. Bearian 01:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city;". Despite this is what the creator stated to back up the existence of this article, don't you think the fact that some-one creating it a second time is reason enough to keep it? People obviously want this page to exist. I think the independent sources put on the page warrant to keep this article under notibility, don't you? I believe the original page was just an advertisement, but this article is written in a third person perspective etc., and I believe should be kept. --LowerTheFlags 01:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact - I believe it satisfies Criteria #1 in WP:MUSIC. "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." --LowerTheFlags 01:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK - after a little more research, I can find several reasons why this article meets the WP:MUSIC criteria:

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. (have been in Zero Tolerance magazine, and several other zines [1] [2] [3] [4] which I believe are reliable and well known in their genre)
2. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable (Ben Hayes of Enochian Theory used to be in this band)
3. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city (Playing with Cradle of Filth on 30th April 2007 is a pretty major gig, and says to me that they were the top choice for local support, despite being unsigned)

--LowerTheFlags 00:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - every band receives press, unless they are totally out of it - it's hard to even get a gig unless you can prove to the promoter that you're good at getting some local press. I've received press, yet I'm not notable - it's fairly easy to do as long as the band is rather professional in their approach. Also, I'd argue from experience that specialist-mag CD reviews are similarly easy to get, and I'd also suggest that opening for a major act's local gig doesn't exactly entail notability - they could be willing to "play for exposure (i.e. free)", or be friends with the promoters, or the band may have a local draw of 100 people which the promoters wanted to add to their pull for the night. Also, as far as band members go, I'd suggest there has to be some independent notability for this band that requires us to have more than a passing reference to them in the Enochian Theory article (i.e., notability is not inherited). To me, notability should suggest that someone outside this band's country, with only a passing experience with their genre, can be easily persuaded by sourced statements within our article that this group is notable, because the outside sources assert reasons why the group is notable. Just because you're mentioned in an article doesn't make you notable - press mention is really only an indicator of possible notability. Anyway, I've always found the notability criteria for Music to be very loose, compared to Wikipedia's general notability criteria, and that's what's informing my opinion. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You make valid points there, but as you saw when creating this AfD, this is not the first time this page has existed. Surely the fact that this is not the first time this page has been made indicates that people want to share the information. The article itself is well structured and nicely laid out, but of course that is not reason alone to keep the article. I don't want to start WikiLawyering, but quoted from WP:N, A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline below, or if it meets an accepted subject specific standard listed in the table to the right., tells me that WP:MUSIC would in a sense "over-ride" WP:N. That's the way I interpreted it anyway... so I didn't really look at WP:N. Regardless, I still maintain that Frosthold should be kept as I (believe me or not) found this article useful... and I'm pretty sure that's what an Encyclopaedia is for... --LowerTheFlags 18:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always found the notability criteria for Music to be very loose, compared to Wikipedia's general notability criteria, and that's what's informing my opinion. Well too bad, that's what we're using in this discussion. Morgan Wick 19:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment LowerTheFlags: You have made some sound, persuasive arguments with regard to the MUSIC criteria – almost to the point of convincing me to opt for at least a weak keep !vote – but then you undermine your position to some extent by falling back on the "I like it" argument, which is not valid. Wikipedia does not have to be a complete compendium of things that some people may find interesting; it instead strives to be a tertiary source of noteworthy, previously published knowledge. Stick to the notability angle and you will likely be more persuasive (and that, unlike votes, is what counts). Adrian M. H. 19:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep This article was AfD'ed before and the result was Delete. However, in the year since then, this article was edited and it seems that it has met the critera for survival. That said, the other AfD still is enforcable. Steve J 16:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.