Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alchemist british power metal band 1985-1991


 * 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 consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Alchemist british power metal band 1985-1991

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable, no sources and no google hits. Seems to fail WP:BAND. Harland1 (t/c) 18:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, if all they put out were demos.  Corvus cornix  talk  18:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * hi we were equally as big as several metal bands on here. i still get mail about our band to this day. please do not delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antony marshall (talk • contribs) 19:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)  — Antony marshall (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please familiarize yourself with WP:N and WP:MUSIC. And the "shift" key. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:BAND. Also the user is just self-promoting the band. --Madchester (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

listen wile i understand your justifiable cause to keep wiki free from self promotion it would have been easy for me to log on under an assumed name and post as a fan. i did not my e-mail address and name are open to see and would be happy to post them. we were an influential band at one point the biggest unsigned metal band touring and recording demos. i think our entry is fully justifiable. hopefullly it was correctly spelt and not one long advert. please advise how we could get a listing then, maybe if we cheat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antony marshall (talk • contribs) 19:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether you had logged on as a fan or not has no bearing on whether or not your band meets the Wikipedia guideline at WP:BAND. From your own article, you admit that you only ever released demos which sold in the neighborhood of 1000 copies, and you never signed with a major label.  Those are big strikes against you.   Corvus cornix  talk  19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

and i totaly understand this however in total we probably sold 4K+ and toured extensivly. by your standards radiohead would now be in danger because they are not signed to a major lable but there own! delete it if it makes you feel better but i thorgh the whole point of this was to have fun and enlighten people maybe its just so a select band of people can act as god? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antony marshall (talk • contribs) 20:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete Your method of arguing grows increasingly strange, especially when you begin comparing this band to Radiohead, which has sufficient documentation establishing their notability. As of yet this article has no sources whatsoever, and if you have any that support this bands claim to notability, then I might consider changing my vote. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - no sources to indicate this is anything other than a small-time unsigned band like a million others past and present. The article itself pretty much makes the case for non-notability by stating that the band recorded some demos then split up without ever being signed to a label.  Oh, and reading it made my eyes bleed ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC easily. Lets see: Sales: 4,000? Charting Singles: None, on a label of note: nope. Yeah this doesn't seem to be notable. And couldn't they have called the article "Alchemist (British band)" or something? No All Music Guide entry, no scrobbles on last.fm, all google hits are for an Australian band called Alchemist and the anime Full Metal Alchemist. Doc Strange (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

i was not asking for radioheads entry to be deleted just said that if major label status was needed then theres a point in question right there. i understand the rules please feel free to deleate as it is the crime of the century to have someone most people have never heard of on wiki. by the way i run a pub probably one of the most sucsessful out there we have won or been runner up in 9 major awards in 2 years and shortlisted in 2 others next year (including the proud of pubs pub of the year award in the publican awards) could i enter this pub in wiki?? oh no because most people have not heard of it! please deleate this as it will make you all feel great and who am i to stop this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.196.51 (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a non-notable band, per the reasoning of everyone above me. If the article's creator wants to nominate Radiohead's article for deletion, he's welcome to try, although I doubt he'll like the result. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Major label status is helpful in establishing the notability of a band, but per this page it's not the be-all and end-all. As other contributors here have pointed out, Radiohead meets and/or exceeds a vast number of the other criteria on that page. Nobody's calling this "the crime of the century" or anything like that - it's simply the case that this band, good as I'm sure they were, don't pass the criteria for inclusion. These things happen. As far as the pub goes, you're welcome to contact me on my Talk page and we'll see what we can see - something that wins awards and gets shortlisted for others may well be notable, the fact that "most people have not heard of it" is neither here nor there, as we've tried to tell you throughout this discussion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also Radiohead has several things that this band does not: Charting Singles in several countries including a Top 40 US hit, several Top 10 singles in the UK including One that hit #3, a single that hit #1 in Canada, A Grammy-winning album - considered by many in the music business to be one of the best of all time - that has sold over two million copies in the United States alone, An album that hit #1 in both the US and UK, Grammy Awards, and actually were at one time on a Major label of note and if you haven't been paying attention to music news lately, have recently signed a deal with Another record label of note. Whereas your band has none of these accomplishments and has never come close. I'm sure your band is a very good band, but Simply comparing your band to Radiohead in terms of notability is extraordinary frivolous. Doc Strange (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

jesus read the post i am NOT comparing us to radiohead jesus i hate there music anyway! we were far better! only joking! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.196.51 (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know you are not. But the examples I show in my comment show why Radiohead is notable per Wikipedia and yours isn't. You claim sales of 4,000. This isn't notable. Your band has no page on All Music Guide, no scrobbles on Last.Fm, no reviews, no singles that made any of Billboard's charts, no singles or albums that made any chart anywhere, no appearences on a TV show of note, no albums on a major label, never been signed to a major label, no Google hits pertaining to your band and no awards, whereas Radiohead meets and exceeds all of these. I was just giving an example of what Wikipedia considers notable per WP:MUSIC by using the example you mentioned above. Doc Strange (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

yep no prob. i know in the great scheem of things we were nothing but big up the little guy. oh and our guitar player has collated all our demos for our planned myspace page but if it does not fit then sorry im very new to wiki.
 * A MySpace is a handy thing for a band to have, but it doesn't count here, no. That said, there's always hope. I can't remember the name of the British band who scored a massive record contract just by having a MySpace that someone stumbled over, but things like that do happen. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks we are not after a contract as we now are all married kids ect just recording our little band for postrerity. by the way we were in numours magazine in the late 80's early 90's still we tried ah haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.196.51 (talk) 11:47, 31 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.