Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hidious In Strength


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hidious In Strength

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Apparently non-notable band by apparently non-notable artist. Article's only reference is not independant of the subject, therefore not reliable. The article itself basically says the band is non-notable.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding to this nomination Sleep Chamber, also for non-notability, and that it is a WP:Coatrack for negative BLP information about John Zewizz. (note: first three !votes below mine were added before bundling this article to this nomination. Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:Coatrack is a controversial essay, as the template at the top of this essay states: "Heed them or not at your own discretion." On the other hand, Content forking, a content guideline, states: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." This rule nulifies WP:Coatrack. travb (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't there be an AfD notification template placed on the Sleep Chamber article page as well, since its deletion is being debated now? Quaeler (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete both (as nominator).  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: as per nominator. JamesBurns (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If there is no assertion of notability, it seems to be a good candidate for a speedy as db-band. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 05:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep (non-bold). It seems like if the Sleep Chamber article meets notability, so would too a hypothetical article on its founder - John Zewizz. Were the original author of this article gifted with a shred of tactics, they would have made an article for Zewizz as a keystone to the support for this article ( which concerns one of Zewizz's project - generating a non-trivial amount of material ). We should look past their lack of planning and keep this article in exchange for a promise from them (should they ever pop up to defend their article) to write the Zewizz article posthaste. Quaeler (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (Sleep Chamber) Hmmm.. i'm not sure about the non-notability of Sleep Chamber; it depends on what metric we want to use, of course, but i can go to Amazon.com or Ebay and find items from their catalog for sale which would appear to make it 'legitimate' and therefore 'notable', in my opinion; further, they were prolific and seemingly 'known' in their subculture ( while not particularly involved with that subculture, i'd at least heard of them during the late 1980s ).
 * As far as being a coatrack - this is a slippery slope; the article is a literary masterpiece in neither style nor content, by any stretch of the imagination, but it is addressing a (again, imo) notable act and appears to feature no more bias than any other article written by someone who cares enough about a topic to bother writing an article. Quaeler (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep (also non-bold) - There seems to be a contradiction if this article exists but an article for John Zewizz does not. A Google search does seem to indicate that John Zewizz is mildly notable. It seems that in a perfect world this article would be a redirect to a subsection in a John Zewizz article. It is unclear if even John Zewizz himself achieves notability sufficient for Wikipedia by my standards but he seems to have more notability than many of the fringe artists that has passed the notability for their articles at Wikipedia so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. So until a John Zewizz article appears for a redirect, I have a weak keep opinion. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable in every way, shape, and form. According to the "article", this group barely exists at all. Proxy User (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MUSIC. Barely-existant: only releases were "limited edition" self-released cassette tapes.  If this were about a current band it would have been speedied in about 10 seconds. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND by an impressive margin. Arguing WP:COATRACK is a not too subtle smokescreen for glossing over the fact that there is nothing here worth saving. Trusilver  02:29, 30 December 2008 (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.