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)

The Roxx Regime Demos

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * 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.    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)


 * 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)
 * Add to that: "officially released albums may have sufficient notability". Note may not will  --Jubilee♫ clipman  04:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 01:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 22:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - The article nowhere claims that the album is a demo, just that the songs on it were demos. In fact, it only explicitly states that one of the songs was a demo: "except for the track "Honestly" which is taken from a later demo".  Indeed, it states that the album "is an album by Stryper consisting of songs originally released under the band's previous name" [my emphasis].  If the songs were released, then they were no longer demos, QED.  However, this does indeed state that the album "is comprised of -- you guessed it! -- demos".  But that's a moot point because the album was released by Fifty-Three Five Records in 2007 (catalogue number 0725) according to that same source.  Should  Anthology 3 be deleted because that album consists of "demos" and previously unreleased out-takes?  There can be no doubt that this present article needs a lot of work but I do have a strong feeling that this album is truly notable going by the sources I have so far read, as snipets like this seem to suggest.  It is hard to source this album beyond passing mentions, however, (and the webmasters at the Rolling Stone site seem to have deleted or moved their reviews pages).  So, ignoring the nom's rationale and looking at WP:V and, especially, WP:SIGCOV instead, is this album discussed in reliable independent sources beyond passing mentions?  I have no idea...  The Verifiability policy is the key here, IMO, rather than WP:MUSIC's advice (and note the disclaimer at the head of that document: "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb...")  --Jubilee♫ clipman  03:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Response "Should Anthology 3 be deleted because that album consists of "demos" and previously unreleased out-takes?" No, because there is significant coverage, per WP:MUSIC. The distinction that you are making between the tracks being demos and demo albums being sold commercially is a false one, as you yourself point out by referring to Anthology 3. The controversy is not whether or not this exist, but whether or not there is enough significant coverage for this self-released demo album to have an article here and it seems clear to me that the answer is no. Almost all of these sources simply list this as existing rather than providing substantial coverage or critical commentary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the point I was making. I think all of us were confused by your blunt statement "Demos are assumed non-notable" which is true (per "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable") unless "they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources", as I pointed out and as you have now clarified was your actual meaning.  There is a difference, though, between a demo, per se, and a release of a demo.  Pretty moot point, however, if neither demo nor release are actually given "significant independent coverage in reliable sources".  BTW, I tried to source this album further but failed.  Your modified rationale (i.e. including the point you made about SIGCOV) probably does give us pause for thought here.  Hence my !vote  --Jubilee♫ clipman  04:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The nominating editor is now distancing himself from his original nomination rationale, which was "Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC." Now he tries to find fault in the independent coverage of 'The Roxx Regime Demos'. "The Roxx Regime Demos" album has received significant coverage by numerous sources. Here is a small list of additional sources which address the subject directly in detail. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 (in German), 15, 16, 17. These sources prove that 'The Roxx Regime Demos' album did receive significant coverage from reliable and verifiable sources which are independent from the subject of the article. Amsaim (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply - If the nominator is now contexualising his rationale, that can only be a good thing. Better still, if this debate has moved you to prove that the album has received significant coverage from independent reliable sources then that's fantastic.  Indeed: "however, they [=demos etc] may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources" (WP:NALBUMS) which you are going a long way to prove.  Whether its a "demo album" (whatever that means) or an official album is a moot point, therefore, if it passes SIGCOV.  Also, I am not sure the point you are trying to make by constantly linking to the nom's block history.  Cheers --Jubilee♫ clipman  17:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rationale "The nominating editor is now distancing himself from his original nomination rationale" No, I'm not. Since demos are assumed non-notable, there must be extra coverage to assert its notability, unlike a standard studio album. Let's take a look at these sources:
 * Reliable?, just repeats the press release, no critical commentary
 * Reliable?, no critical commentary
 * Reliable?, critical commentary with review
 * Reliable?, no critical commentary
 * Online retailer, unreliable and no critical commentary
 * Reliable?, no critical commentary
 * Reliable?, no critical commentary
 * First-party source, no critical commentary
 * Reliable?, no critical commentary
 * Reliable, but no critical commentary
 * and Reliable?, no critical commentary
 * Reliable?, apparently a review
 * Reliable?, no critical commentary
 * Reliable?, no critical commentary
 * Reliable?, critical commentary with a review
 * First-party source
 * Reliable and critical commentary
 * First-party source
 * Reliable?, no critical commentary
 * As you can see, there is only one source that is clearly reliable and provides critical commentary and virtually all of the sources are repetitions of the press release or simply discographies that mention the album exists. None of this amounts to the significant coverage required to make an article for a demo album. This fails WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The nominator has hardened himself in his belief, that an officially released album by a notable band is a demo. Again he deviates from his original nomination rationale (Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC) and is now calling 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a "demo album". There is no such thing as a demo album. Recording companies and labels do not release demos. What they release is albums and singles. The band Stryper released 'The Roxx Regime Demos' officially as an album. In Europe this album is sold officially with an official LC (label code) number. Each country in the EU has its own version of the LC number. Demos do not receive LC numbers. Albums do. Stryper calls 'The Roxx Regime Demos' an album. Allmusic.com confirms this and calls the album a compilation. RollingStones.com calls it an album as well. (The link to the RollingStones.com entry on 'The Roxx Regime Demos' mysteriously disappeared a few days after I added the rollingstones.com link to the article.) MSN.com calls this album a compilation. MTV.com calls it an album. vh1.com calls it an album. Numerous other reliable sources call 'TheRoxx Regime Demos' either an album or a compilation. Only the nominator of this AfD keeps on insisting that this is a demo. The closing admin of this AfD is called upon to decide whether she/he wants to go against the judgement of music professionals from MSN.com, RollingStones.com, Allmusic.com, MTV.com and vh1.com who call 'TheRoxx Regime Demos' an album, or whether she/he wants to follow the personal opinion of the nominator in calling 'TheRoxx Regime Demos' a demo. Amsaim (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Demo albums Whether or not something is a demo and whether or not it is a compilation album are not mutually exclusive. You claim that there is no such thing as a demo album, but Nebraska (album) and everything else in Category:Demo albums contradicts that. I have no idea where you get the idea that a demo album can't have an LC number, but that doesn't change the fact that this album is made up of demos and according to WP:MUSIC, it should be assumed non-notable until there is enough significant thrid-party coverage. There is not, so the article should be deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You do not seem to understand the difference between a demo and an album consisting of demo songs. In the music business, there is no such thing as a "demo album". It's either a demo recording or an officially released album. Please try to understand the difference. Bruce Springsteens album Nebraska is exactly that: an album consisting of demo-songs which Springsteen wrote and recorded himself. According to the Wikipedia entry on Nebraska, "Springsteen ultimately decided to release the demos as a standalone album". The very moment the recording company officially released these demo songs on an album, with professional audio mastering, with an album cover, with the vinyl and the LC number, it became an official album and ceized to be a demo. That's the difference. What Springsteen did in 1982 with 'Nebraska' is the exact same thing that Stryper did with 'The Roxx Regime Demos' in 2007: taking previously recorded demo-songs to the studio, audio-mastering the demo-songs, and then officially releasing these demo-songs as an official album, with CD/album cover, LC number etc. One wonders why you decided to take Stryper's version to Afd while leaving Bruce Springsteens' Nebraska? Amsaim (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Coverage It's very simple: Nebraska has significant coverage. I don't see what is confusing about this. Jubileeclipman, feel free to collapse this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * End - I can't see you convincing each other of your respective positions in this matter, so I suggest you end this discussion now (or, better still, take it to your talk pages). I will collapse this section if you continue.  Thanks  --Jubilee♫ clipman  20:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

*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)
 * Addendum - The information could be merged into the band's article however, if it is deemed a useful addition to it --Jubilee♫ clipman  04:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - 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: .  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)

Comment - It appears as if the nominator is unwilling to accept the simple given fact: 'The Roxx Regime Demos' is the name of an album which was officially released by Stryper in 2007 by their record company "Fifty-Three Five Records". Stryper lists this album as part of their official album discography here. Nowhere does Allmusic.com call 'The Roxx Regime Demos' a Demo. This is what Allmusic.com explicitly 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 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 "Obviously aimed at die-hard Stryper fans, Roxx Regime Demos provides an authentic snapshot of the group in their early stages. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Keep, with a little bit can improve this page. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.