Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velvet Cacoon


 * 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 of the debate was keep no consensus. --Ichiro 05:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Velvet Cacoon
This band looks non-notable. No entry on AMG. Article is filled with info about rumoured releases and about how the band members spread disinformation about themselves. The "real" releases were only released on P2P networks, only had 100 copies of CD-Rs handed out, etc. Delete  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 06:42Z  Delete - Band is not notable. Vanity page. --Iconoclast 15:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Real" releases are "Genevieve" and "Northsuite" on FMP (a respected indie black metal label), neither of which were limited pressings. The band is notable within the black metal scene, and I would cite from the notability guideline: "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture."  Multiple and varied black metal and general metal press reports can be found here: .  Since black metal has its own page on Wikipedia, I'd assume that it is a notable sub-culture.  Also, just as a general note, why would we want to diminish the amount of overall knowledge available on Wikipedia?  With all the disinformation spread about the band, an encyclopedic entry is the perfect vessel with which to gradually sort out what's true and what isn't.  Keep. Night 09:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. I couldn't tell from casual reading that those two albums were more "real" than the others.  Could you reformat that section so that it is more apparent?  Since you appear to be the primary author of the article you I assume you know about the subject well.  If we end up deciding VC is notable then perhaps you should create an article for FMP as well.  Wikipedia has a policy of requiring verifiability; are the claims in this article verifiable if the band lies about themselves?  How do we know the band lies about themselves; how can we trust you more than the band itself?  Please provide cite all claims, such as that the band really formed in 2002 rathern than 1996.  AMG would be good, but VC is not listed in AMG.  If someone else can say about the band's notability, that would be nice; your opinion might be biased.  A list of press releases is not the same as "frequently covered", and in addition, by your claims about them being not truthful, it's hard to trust that web page, isn't it? :)  As for diminishing overall knowledge, see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; many band articles are deleted every day for lack of notability.  We have to have some standards, otherwise you and I can start a band today and have a Wikipedia article tomorrow :)  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-06 10:21Z 

keep article is completely legitimate, band is legit and verifiable. They're clearly not an unknown garage or local band. No reason for this article to go except for some vague, poorly defined suggestions (not guidelines) as to what is worthy of coverage here.--TaeKwonTimmy 04:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - This group may shortly be notable, so userfying the information might be useful. At present it would appear to have only one actual signed release with "Full Moon Productions" and thus does not meet WP:Music (cf., FMP Prod.) The notability of FMP is also in doubt because of the 40,000 Yahoo! search hits, only ~1000 actually relate to that company (crosslink with search term "black metal") with a number relating to a promotion company based in LA.--eleuthero 21:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep Velvet Cacoon has made some of the best black metal of the last couple of years. Unlike most of you users who are commenting here, I actually listen to black metal (sorry if I am wrong) and am a fan of this band. Even if VC has lied about aspects of the band, or even releases, they still are a band, and a notable one in the USBM scene. I think that the fact that they have lied and formed an image that is fabricated actually adds to their importance. It is a social experiment that shows that we as music listeners are as much attracted to the "hype" surrounding the band as the music they create. All Music Guide is not the definitive source for all music, as it would imply. There is much notable underground music that goes unnoticed. It can only be used as a resource, not the only source for what "music" is. I have also talked to people who have some of the other releases, and they do exist. And I think you can consider them "notable" in the scene, as on FMP's message board, the latest VC thread has 2,140 hits. Pretty high. FMP was the first black metal label to be formed in the US, which takes the wind out of the argument that the label is not notable. This is a strong keep.--Fmalcangi 17:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Keep Velvet Cacoon is a real band, and Full Moon Productions is a real label. AMG/WP are not effective tools to garnering information on underground music. Anybody familiar with underground black metal knows who both VC and FMP are. This shouldn't even be up for debate. --Astrosa 13:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. They don't seem to have met WP:MUSIC. Stifle 01:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted" If you followed WP:MUSIC to the letter, you might have to delete 75% of the metal bands on Wikipedia. And these guys have been featured prominantly in many underground black metal publications and websites. You must keep this article.--Fmalcangi 23:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you can provide some citations for the articles in these publications, it would be a big help to your case. -Colin Kimbrell 15:07, 9 January 2006 (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.