Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Roxx Regime Demos
- 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Roxx Regime Demos[edit]
- The Roxx Regime Demos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Wikipedia's guideline for album notability: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." This is an official Stryper album, consisting of songs from Stryper's pre-Stryper days, when they called themselves The Roxx Regime. This is not a demo. The album was released on 7 July 2007 by Stryper.[1][2][3][4][5] Notability is thusly established. The editor who placed this article in AfD is ignoring the provided reliable verifiable sources on the talk page and the article itself which show that "The Roxx Regime Demos" is not a demo, but is an album released in 2007 by Stryper. Amsaim (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ^ "Stryper Discography on Official Website". Stryper. Retrieved 21 April 2010.
- ^ "The Roxx Regime Demos - AllMusic.com Review". AllMusic.com. Retrieved 21 April 2010.
- ^ "Stryper Discography at RollingStone.com". RollingStone.com. Retrieved 26 March 2010.
- ^ "Stryper - Discography". MetalMusicArchives.com. Retrieved 21 April 2010.
- ^ "Stryper - Complete Album Discography". Spirit of Metal Webzine. Retrieved 21 April 2010.
- Comment None of those sources establish notability, simply the existence of the demo, which was never in doubt. In point of fact, one of your sources explicitly states that it's a demo (in addition to the name of the album, of course), and notes that it's only for die-hard fans. Since it's a self-released demo, it is assumed non-notable by WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Add to that: "officially released albums may have sufficient notability". Note may not will --Jubilee♫clipman 04:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Amsaim above. The nominator is hunting down articles with "demo" in the title or text and proposing deletion without further investigation. Or if he is investigating, he isn't saying any more than "assumed non notable..." The guideline on demos exists and should be observed, but the fact that guideline does not define what a demo IS should allow for some flexibility in special cases like one. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are you doubting that this is a demo album or are you granting that it is, but is somehow notable? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither, because I don't see this as a strict black-and-white issue. I was referencing your unnecessarily inflexible take on the term "demo" which is not even defined in the WP guideline that is the basis for many of your recent AfDs on articles that use the term "demo" in many different ways. See the discussion here. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
tangential discussion
|
---|
|
*Delete - Fails WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. If notability cannot be verified, the article becomes unviable (irrespective of the notability or otherwise of the subject of any related article, in this case the band) --Jubilee♫clipman 04:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
- Keep - Amsaim has gone a long way to provide proof of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. However, most are either track listings or previews and the Rolling Stones link breaks my end (in UK), unfortunately: [21]. That said, there does appear to be enough independent coverage out there for the album to pass SIGCOV and I suspect there will be more where they came from --Jubilee♫clipman 17:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allmusic.com does not call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a demo. It calls it a compilation. And a compilation is not a demo. Allmusic.com declares is to be a Compilation, and when you check Stryper's discography at Allmusic.com you will see 'The Roxx Regime Demos' listed under compilations. RollingStones.com listed 'The Roxx Regime Demos' as part of Stryper's discography, however since April 2010 RollingStones.com has changed their website and thus Stryper's discography is no longer viewable. There is a huge difference between a demo which is usually created unprofessionally without any mastering involved, and a fully mastered album such as Stryper's 2007 release "The Roxx Regime Demos". Nowhere does allmusic.com write that 'The Roxx Regime Demos' is only for die-hard fans, the way the nominator claims. This is what allmusic.com writes:QUOTE
"And the 2007 compilation, Roxx Regime Demos, is comprised of -- you guessed it! -- demos from this pre-Stryper edition of the band."
END OF QUOTE
QUOTE
END OF QUOTE
In summary, the nominator is ignoring these facts, and is openly lying by misquoting a reliable source, claiming that Allmusic.com calls 'Roxx Regime Demos' a demo, claiming that Allmusic.com declares 'The Roxx Regime Demos' to be only for die-hard fans. The nominator is merely voicing his own personal opinion about this article, and in the face of prevailing evidence decides to ignore the given facts. While Stryper themselves, music professionals from allmusic.com and from various other sources call 'Roxx Regime Demos' a compilation or an album, this nominator is unimpressed by the facts. By bringing this notable article to AfD, ignoring the provided reliable verifiable sources, and by lying about & misquoting reliable sources, the nominator thus is again acting in a disruptive manner. Amsaim (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lying? I'm not lying. There is nothing about a compilation that makes it mutually-exclusive of being a demo. And if this is indeed composed of demos, I fail to see how this is not a demo album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - when Justin first PRODed this article, there was no "prevailing evidence" to prove that this album ("demo" or otherwise) passes SIGCOV or even WP:V. When he later sent it here, the article wasn't much better. It is getting better however. I would prefer to AFG here, therefore, rather than throw accusations of POV pushing and personal agenda around. My recent change in vote take no account whatever of your personal reflections above: I recast my vote because you (just marginally) proved SIGCOV. WP:HEY, in other words --Jubilee♫clipman 17:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, with a little bit can improve this page. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment while perhaps this album started as demos, it didn't end up as demos so the naming is perhaps confusing. So I've removed the demo category from the article accordingly. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Once the demos were compiled and officially released, they are no longer demos, no matter under what name the band (or label) chooses to market them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. Demos in their original form are generally non-notable. However if a band or record company takes the demo recording(s) and packages and releases them as an actual album then at that point it IS an album and should be judged by the same criteria as any other album. Exxolon (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2010 (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.