This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ruud Koot (talk | contribs) at 17:49, 17 February 2012 (re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:49, 17 February 2012 by Ruud Koot (talk | contribs) (re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Wizard (band)
- Wizard (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deprodded without comment. No non-trivial sources found. Nothing on Gnews or Gbooks at all. Ten Pound Hammer • 02:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- The band has articles on 8 wikis, that would be highly unusual for a non-notable band. I am sure they are frequently covered in the major metal news sources, which I avoid at all costs usually.--Milowent • 02:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Milowent, as a belated Valentine's gift you could have Kerrang forwarded to my address. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Nine albums, five of which also have :en:WP articles? Now the current state for sourcing might be poor, but the nominator is going to need to show better evidence than merely wikt:whining about their prod being removed before they make a credible nomination for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, did you not see the thing about "no sources"? In case you missed it, I FOUND NO SOURCES. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:BEFORE. Eight interwiki links and five albums with individual articles. Nominator has a pretty bad track record when it comes to trying to find sources before nominating articles for deletion (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ICCF Finland), so I'm not going to trust him on that. —Ruud 12:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete I'm usually quite quick to censure TPH in such cases so it seems only fair to get in his corner when he has a point. As the nomination points out, there doesn't seem to be much on Google News or Google Books for this band, and so WP:BEFORE has been followed. And, as they've been around for some years, the lack of book coverage indicates that they haven't really made it. The existence of album articles doesn't help because that seems to be just more of the same - unsupported fanac. And inter-wikilinks aren't much better because Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. Warden (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I get plenty of hits on Google News and Google Books. Because "Wizard" is such a generic term none of the top results are relevant, however. This does not mean there are no sources there. You also imply that Google Books and Google News are appropriate search engines for finding sources about bands, which sounds like a doubtful claim at best. A quick look on their last.fm profile reveals they have a decent amount of listeners and are in the line-up of Hammerfest. There are probably sources in more specialized publications. —Ruud 16:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- One obviously has to use other keywords besides the word wizard and I used the name of the founder. For comparison, if one searches Google Books using the words Wizzard Roy Wood, you get about 800 hits. last.fm doesn't cut it as a source because it seems to be edited by its readership, like Misplaced Pages, and its content just seems to say "1. A German heavy metal band." That's barely enough to support a mention in List of heavy metal bands, which does not currently include this one. Warden (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Where did I suggest using last.fm as a source? I suggested it 1) as a starting point for finding sources and 2) as a means to establish notability. Their listening statistics probably a more objective criteria for this than TPH's Google skills.
- If I search Google Books for "Catamenia Riku Hopeakoski" (quotation marks not included) I don't get any hits either, raising more doubt about its usefulness for finding sources on bands. —Ruud 17:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- I get plenty of hits on Google News and Google Books. Because "Wizard" is such a generic term none of the top results are relevant, however. This does not mean there are no sources there. You also imply that Google Books and Google News are appropriate search engines for finding sources about bands, which sounds like a doubtful claim at best. A quick look on their last.fm profile reveals they have a decent amount of listeners and are in the line-up of Hammerfest. There are probably sources in more specialized publications. —Ruud 16:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- So you think "keep" just because the ALBUMS have articles? Maybe they're not notable either. Because PROBABLY there are sources? Don't make a baseless argument please. I searched for "Wizard" + the name of various band members and found absolutely nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- No, because you failed to address the existence of these articles in your rationale, implying you didn't exercise due diligence before nominating this article, as the fate of the articles on the individual albums clearly should be tied to this article. —Ruud 17:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability, due to a lack of reliable sources. If there are some out there, as claimed, I'd advise you add them to the article, pronto. Oh, and saying "this band's albums have articles so they must be notable" is a non-starter as the album articles are also unreferenced and lacking notability. I'd suggest to the nominator to also take them to AFD. GiantSnowman 17:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- If the band's article is deleted, the albums can be speedied via A9. Ten Pound Hammer • 17:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)