Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizard (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. Black Kite (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wizard (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Deprodded without comment. No non-trivial sources found. Nothing on Gnews or Gbooks at all. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The band has articles on 8 wikis, that would be highly unusual for a non-notable band. I am sure they are frequently covered in the major metal news sources, which I avoid at all costs usually.--Milowent • hasspoken  02:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Milowent, as a belated Valentine's gift you could have Kerrang forwarded to my address. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the hint, sweetie.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Nine albums, five of which also have :en:WP articles? Now the current state for sourcing might be poor, but the nominator is going to need to show better evidence than merely wikt:whining about their prod being removed before they make a credible nomination for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, did you not see the thing about "no sources"? In case you missed it, I FOUND NO SOURCES. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that you look. On this or other articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please lay off the attacks. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that you look. On this or other articles.


 * TenPoundHammer. I also don't believe that you look. I became aware of your pattern of behavior at Articles for deletion/Xargs where it literally took me seconds to find what you claimed to be unable to find. In my opinion, this pattern of behavior is destructive to the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just added a couple of refs. Took me under two minutes. "Wizard" obviously doesn't work for a search, but the names of band members or albums usually do - just skip the first page to get past Amazon and musicbrainz. OK, they're not great refs and they wouldn't support an extraordinary claim that the Dalai Lama was in a fist fight with Brian Blessed, but within the genre of popular metal bands they're entirely appropriate.
 * You have made a career of deleting WP articles. Your prior search technique to show lack of notability is clearly inadequate. Either through lack of effort, competence (claiming "Nothing on Gnews of Gbooks for Wizard" is hardly adequate) or simply because you're unprepared to slow down your essential race to delete articles. Are you some sort of WP:WikiShark? If you don't get to delete ten articles a day, do you drown? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)




 * The "sources" you've added are both interviews, which per WP:BAND #1 are not enough to support an article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So spend more than the two minutes I did and add some better ones. You claimed there are no sources, I found some within seconds.
 * Besides which, before citing WP:BAND#1 to claim that interviews are not sources, then you might do well to actually read WP:BAND. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BEFORE WP:BAND #5 (notable label). Eight interwiki links and five albums with individual articles. Nominator has a pretty bad track record when it comes to trying to find sources before nominating articles for deletion (Articles for deletion/ICCF Finland), so I'm not going to trust him on that. —Ruud 12:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - why "Eight interwiki links" is a valid reason to keep article? Bulwersator (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm usually quite quick to censure TPH in such cases so it seems only fair to get in his corner when he has a point. As the nomination points out, there doesn't seem to be much on Google News or Google Books for this band, and so WP:BEFORE has been followed.  And, as they've been around for some years, the lack of book coverage indicates that they haven't really made it.  The existence of album articles doesn't help because that seems to be just more of the same - unsupported fanac.  And inter-wikilinks aren't much better because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Warden (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I get plenty of hits on Google News and Google Books. Because "Wizard" is such a generic term none of the top results are relevant, however. This does not mean there are no sources there. You also imply that Google Books and Google News are appropriate search engines for finding sources about bands, which sounds like a doubtful claim at best. A quick look on their last.fm profile reveals they have a decent amount of listeners and are in the line-up of Hammerfest. There are probably sources in more specialized publications. —Ruud 16:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One obviously has to use other keywords besides the word wizard and I used the name of the founder. For comparison, if one searches Google Books  using the words Wizzard Roy Wood, you get about 800 hits.  last.fm doesn't cut it as a source because it seems to be edited by its readership, like Wikipedia, and its content just seems to say "1. A German heavy metal band."  That's barely enough to support a mention in List of heavy metal bands, which does not currently include this one. Warden (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Where did I suggest using last.fm as a source? I suggested it 1) as a starting point for finding sources and 2) as a means to establish notability. Their listening statistics probably a more objective criteria for this than TPH's (or, for that matter, my) Google skills.
 * If I search Google Books for "Catamenia Riku Hopeakoski" (quotation marks not included) I don't get any hits either, raising more doubt about its usefulness for finding sources on bands. —Ruud 17:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Catamenia Riku Hopeakoski gets 8 hits on Google News. They don't seem very high quality but it's something.  And when I look at the Wikipedia article, I have to curb the urge to nominate it for deletion.  I suppose the content in this  article has been scraped from the band's own sites and so is essentially promotional in nature.  And the trouble is that it is so uncontrolled that you could hide any amount of misinformation or BLP violation in there.  WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTPROMOTION.  Warden (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't forget WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIA... Did you know some people might actually want to find out who the drummer was in that band they listened to at Wacken Open Air? —Ruud 19:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please lay off the attacks. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So you think "keep" just because the ALBUMS have articles? Maybe they're not notable either. Because PROBABLY there are sources? Don't make a baseless argument please. I searched for "Wizard" + the name of various band members and found absolutely nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because you failed to address the existence of these articles in your rationale, implying you didn't exercise due diligence before nominating this article, as the fate of the articles on the individual albums clearly should be tied to this article. —Ruud 17:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)did you try the unfortunately nicknamed "snoppi"? That one led me to metal website articles like  (which amusingly cites the Manowar comparison in our article)   , etc.  Now, I am not familiar with these metal music websites, but man this is a lot of stuff.--Milowent • hasspoken  17:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of those are just interviews. Per WP:BAND #1, you'll need more than that ("except for the following[…]publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves"). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That clause refers to press releases and advertisements, not interviews. —Ruud 18:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Just interviews"? What happened to "found absolutely nothing?"  Once I searched "snoppi" and wizard the hits just blossomed.--Milowent • hasspoken  21:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of notability, due to a lack of reliable sources. If there are some out there, as claimed, I'd advise you add them to the article, pronto. Oh, and saying "this band's albums have articles so they must be notable" is a non-starter as the album articles are also unreferenced and lacking notability. I'd suggest to the nominator to also take them to AFD. GiantSnowman 17:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If the band's article is deleted, the albums can be speedied via A9. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - article has been improved & band looks to be notable. GiantSnowman 21:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Their page on their label's site verifies that they have released 2 albums with them, which would seem to meet WP:BAND #5 at least.  From their site, I can find several reviews of their albums, but I don't know enough about Germany's metal scene to figure out which, if any, of those reviews are from notable reviewers.Grandmartin11 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I found one review from a site called The Pit, and was able to get the gist from both Google Translate and two years of struggling through college German. Still on the fence with this one. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Enough albums on significant-enough labels, coverage found borderline (I found a review from SLUG Magazine), but I'd give it the benefit of the doubt.--Michig (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * keep there seems to be enough coverage of them Bouket (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to apologize to both Ruud and Andy for being coarse with them. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to delete this article under WP:IDONTLIKEIT - but I don't, because I accept that it has value to other people. There has to be more to this project than achieving some sense of personal worth by finding "stuff that can be done" and doing it regardless of whether that makes a positive contribution or not. This article was unreferenced, so (by some written policy somewhere) it ought to have been deleted within milliseconds. Yet why would that be useful? I'd have done my chunk of serious admin bizniz for the day, but would that really contribute to the sum of human happiness? This is a relatively unimportant article (it's not gravity, cheese or Leonardo da Vinci) and it will never be more than that. It needs the best references that contemporary metaller culture can provide for it (work on improving articles by sourcing is indeed an improvement), but this isn't going to have to start like Principia Mathematica and spend most of a chapter first proving the existence of metal, Germany and drummers. A sense of proportion is more important than slavish following of whatever opportunity the rules provide to exercise that delete button. Thanks though for your last comment, it's appreciated. Andy Dingley (talk)


 * Delete - I looked at the sources as Grandmartin11 did and don't feel that it adds up to even a weak keep. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It appears that Massacre Records is notable enough (look at their list of artists) to qualify per Band 5 (signaled above by Grandmartin). Drmies (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wow, articles on several other Wikipedias?  When has being a Wikipedia article ever been a reliable source?  The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Wizard are signed by B.O. records (1 album), LMP (e.g. Rhapsody) and now (the last three albums) Massacre records. Can't believe this discussion that Wizard should be not worth noticed in Wikipedia ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.56.59.8 (talk) 10:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Last year (2011) Wizard played shows in Ireland (Dublin, Cork), they played in Slovenia as Coheadliner for Destruction, in czech republic they were coheadliner for Mr.Big on a very big festival, they played in netherland and in germany (e.g. support for Manowar on the Lorelei). This year they play in Wales on Hammerfest (Prystatin, near Manchester) at 19:00 o'clock on main stage right before Amon Amarth, in may they headline a festival in USA (near Chicago) together with Virgin Steele, they also play again in czech republic as headliner. Wizard played all important german festivals like Wacken open air (mainstage!!), Bang your head or Headbangers open air. Beside that Wizard were on tour with Grave Digger and played in other countries like greece, italy and poland. Wizard worked together with authors like Andre Wiesler, Wolfgang Hohlbein and William B. Nuke.
 * Keep And Place Editing Restrictions on Nominator. As several commentator have noted, TenPoundHammer has a long history of somehow not being able to find sources during deletion discussions that others are able to find in minutes. Look at Articles for deletion/Xargs for an especially egregious example of this. I am unsure which noticeboard would be most appropriate, but he should be restricted from nominating or prodding articles until he can demonstrate an ability to conduct a thorough search for sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2012 (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.