Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omen (band)


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 01:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Omen (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article was previously deleted after a proposed deletion, but was recreated on March 11th. Since that time, the article has not improved and the notability of the band has not been demonstrated. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and no evidence has been provided that there are multiple significant, reliable, independent reivews of the band or its albums. Neelix (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - I have to go with deleting this one. The sources currently in those article look pretty shabby. Since when did we use MySpace as a means to prove notability? It doesn't appear that even a single member (current or past) is even notable. The band looks to be so "indie" that it hasn't even built a name for itself in the indie-music world. What I can find doing simple google searches doesn't turn up a lot of helpfulness either. Most of the information in the sources appears to be basic (Omen was a band...). It doesn't run very deep as far as notability was concerned, and I even found out that at least half a dozen other bands have used the name "Omen", and no word on whether this "Omen" is more famous than those. I'm not seeing a reason for this band to have a page if we cannot even determine if it's worthy of a page (and no, just releasing albums doesn't make one worthy).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple albums on Metal Blade and Enigma Records allmusic discog and bio. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Duff.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator - Coverage on Allmusic is not sufficient to demonstrate notability; multiple reliable, independent reviews are required, and these do not appear to exist. Neelix (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you nominate, that is already counted as a vote, so to avoid the appearance of double voting you may wish to change your heading to "Comment".--Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Coverage on Allmusic is sufficient to demonstrate notability as it verifies multiple albums on both Metal Blade and Enigma Records, each satisfying criteria #5 of wp:music. In additions to multiple reliable, independent reviews on Allmusic Omen have recieved coverage in Dallas Morning News (Jun 20, 2008), Los Angeles Times (Jul 26, 1987) and Volume 4 of The Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music, Author Colin Larkin, Editor Colin Larkin, Edition 2, Publisher Guinness Pub., 1995. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nomination is not counted as a 'vote' because deletion discussions are not votes. As the guideline states, "Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus." Please be careful when arguing that "coverage on Allmusic is sufficient to demonstrate notability"; just because a band is covered on Allmusic does not mean that it has released albums on major labels; major labels are what criterion #5 entails on Notability (music). Does anyone have the complete citation information for the Dallas Morning News and Los Angeles Times articles so that I can locate them? Title, author, and page number should be sufficient for me to find them through my local library. It is worth noting that the official Metal Blade Records website does not list Omen as one of their artists, current or past. Neelix (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As a !vote, if you will. The same point stands.  Per convention (which, if you doubt, I urge you to check at other AfDs), unless you wish to mislead the closer and others reading this page, I urge you as the nom to not create a false impression of consensus by headering your comment "Delete", and to change it to "Comment", so it is not mistaken as a second !vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * read what I wrote again. no suggestion of major labels. criterion #5 also allows for important independent labels. the allmusic discog link verifies releases on two such labels. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PERKINS PALACE MAY RISE AGAIN, Los Angeles Times, Author: JEFF SPURRIER; STEVE HOCHMAN, Date: Jul 26, 1987, Start Page: 92. Dallas Morning News, HIHGLIGHTS OF THIS WEEK'S LOCAL SHOWS, Publish Date: June 20, 2008, (May just be a gig listing). duffbeerforme (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Allmusic coverage is substantial enough to constitute significant coverage in a reliable source - both the bio and reviews, and the band also has a bio and discography in The Great Metal Discography. Their latest studio album was issued by Crash Music, and here's proof of inclusion in The Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music for those who are still doubters. Their (many) albums have been released on Metal Blade and Enigma/Capitol - this is easily verified from sites such as Amazon . Notability is clear here and we shouldn't waste time discussing it further.--Michig (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2010 (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.