Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pr0metheus burning (2nd nomination)

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. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Pr0metheus burning

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Pr0metheus burning
• Articles for deletion/Pr0metheus burning (2nd nomination)

Pr0metheus burning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. Previously deleted via AFD but that was quite a while ago so I thought new consensus was called for. Prod removed without comment. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - This band doesn't meet any of the criteria for inclusion. —DoRD (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • With the information in the updated article, the band may indeed meet the guidelines. —DoRD (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Neutral, hard to believe it's been over four years since the last AfD and they still only have 165 unique GHits. I really can't find anything in a reliable source that could indicate notability at all. Good luck to 'em, maybe in 2014.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC) EDITED TO SAY: feeling roughly neutral now per ArmadniGeneral's discussion. I can't get too excited about a writeup in the local free alt-weekly; it's the nature of alternative papers to write about underground bands performing at local dive bars. We're talking about the type of paper that has ads for strippers and bongs in the back. However, I'll take the word of others who know more that the labels this band has released on are at least somewhat prominent for this type of music. This band seems to be somewhere around the extreme low end of notability, even in this genre.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: They have a tendency to be named as "Prometheus Burning" rather than "Pr0metheus Burning". Try Googling for that, and you will find 120,000+ hits. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 07:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Tried that before the nomination. Didn't find anything usable for the article, just things like twitter, last.fm, myspace, etc. See WP:GHITS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Keep. Sadly, I can't find any independent coverage by any reliable sources. Criterion 5 of WP:BAND would be the most plausible argument to keep, but I don't believe Hive Records can realistically be considered a 'more important indie label' and even if it were the absence of outside coverage or other claim to notability would prevent me from !voting keep. J04n(talk page) 12:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Changing to keep per the sources added to the article by ArmadniGeneral, particularly [1], [2], [3] and [4]. J04n(talk page) 08:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:BAND IF "In addition to playing much of the east coast and midwest, the group has also played several shows in Canada over the years" can be proven true. Bearian (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • In addition to being verifiable, it has to have received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source, per WP:BAND. Also note that the criterion specifies concert tour, not just "several shows". TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Can someone define what "reliable independant sources" you're looking for to cite - when discussing tour history? How is a complete list of tours and shows played on the bands official site considered inadequate? --Syphir (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
      • A list of tour dates is trivial coverage. Non-trivial coverage in a reliable sources would be something like an article about the tour in a magazine or newspaper (or better-known website). Additionally, the band's website is a primary source and, as such, is unreliable. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have located a source confirming at least one performance in Canada and added it to the article, along with many other citations. I have also located several promotional posters from Canadian venues advertising Pr0metheus Burning's appearance, however I suppose these can't count as reliable sources. Nonetheless we have confirmation that, as of November 2007 they had performed at least one Canadian event. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 07:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The issue really isn't "did they play in Canada?" but "has any tour received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source?".
• Keep: First of all, anyone noting that this article has been deleted previously should note, as the nominator has noted, that the band has undergone developments since that time. Let us keep in mind that WP:N and its related subpages are guidelines, and are "best treated with common sense." Thus I see freedom to move around within them. Getting to the point, the band has released three albums on established, though independent, labels. In addition the article claims that they are working on a fourth (though it is uncited, I am AGF in lieu of third-party confirmation until it is available). I have spent some time tracking down sources for the article, and IMO have been successful. I have even located one article from the Pittsburgh City Paper dedicated entirely to Pr0metheus Burning, although it is somewhat dated. We must keep in mind the relatively-underground status of industrial/electronic music in the United States, thus the difficulty of locating an array of references from familiar sources. Just because something isn't popular doesn't mean it's not notable within the scope of its own genre. That said, I believe the article and the topic meet WP:BAND, criteria 1 and 5. Under criterion 1, the band has had an entire article written about them in the Pittsburgh City Paper, definitely a reliable source and certainly not trivial coverage. Further, the band's albums have been the topic of (at the very least) two reviews by Igloo Magazine and ReGen Magazine, which are popular and notable within the genre. Under criterion 5, the band has released two albums with Hive Records, and one with Crunch Pod, although they might be less notable. Hive Records may not be well known in pop culture, but it is notable to those appreciative of industrial, electronic, or otherwise "underground" music. (Additionally, with the release of Electronic Saviors it may meet criterion 10 as well, although we shall have to wait and see.) If this article is kept I would like to do a rearrangement/reworking of it. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 07:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Criterion 1 states multiple non-trivial published works—1 non-trivial article is a great start but falls far short. Criterion 5 states two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels—Hive is neither a major label nor is it an important indie. Industrial/electronic music is well-established and there are dozens of bands in that genre that are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia that have no trouble passing WP:MUSIC. If a band is so far underground that they can't pass WP:MUSIC, then they're too far underground for Wikipedia. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: I feel ArmadniGeneral has done an outstanding job hunting down references, and I feel they should be adequate enough to keep the article alive. I don't understand how they fall short of being popular enough for Wikipedia. There are many artists of many other genres, even more underground than Industrial - who have been considered popular enough. How does Prometheus Burning differ? They have received considerable popularity within the Industrial scene. They have toured extensively, and have been associated with pretty big names on tours and compilations in very recent years. The references show that. They aren't too underground for Wikipedia - they're not a garage band playing shows in peoples' basements. Industrial itself simply isn't the most popular genre in the world. Just because you've never heard of them doesn't or they may never receive pop radio airplay doesn't mean they're not relevant to the genre at this moment. Also, Hive Records is considered a very important record label within the Industrial community - just about anyone who's involved in Industrial music knows what Hive Records is as far as I'm aware. It's very relevant and noteworthy. --Syphir (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep it looks like it meets WP:BAND, no need to relist even. JBsupreme (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. This article now satisfies WP:BAND well enough for me. Kudos to User:ArmadniGeneral for his work in locating and incorporating the above sources.  Gongshow ^Talk 18:13, 20 January 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.