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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creepmime[edit]

Band made two albums on a small label. A few shows opening for Cynic is the biggest thing they've done. I can't find any significant coverage anywhere, not even on the Dutch sites. Their two albums (Shadows (Creepmime album) and Chiaroscuro (album)) are also listed, above. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Drmies (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They did two albums, so the whole thing rests on whether the label is notable. Have you been able to find something on them? I've found what appear to be at least two labels by that name (one notable, the other not). I currently haven't got access to newspaper sources.- Mgm|^(talk) 23:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MGM and others, Mascot Records (http://www.mascotrecords.com) is not notable enough to have an entry on Wikipedia (yet?). They were a small Dutch label, but these days they also have a US branch (maybe that's why you found two?) whose biggest names (as far as I'm concerned) are Walter Trout, Pat Travers (I used to love him), and Tony Macalpine. I think their biggest name overseas is Pestilence, a Dutch death metal band. Now, problem is (for me, not for WP policy), even if the label squeaks by, the band really does not--there isn't a whole lot to say but "they existed and made two albums." So, if you want to go by the law, and if you consider Mascot notable enough (go judge for yourself on the website, which will direct you to the US or the Europe department), then they get to stay. But I wouldn't want to source the article, cause it'll be all blogs (and not even that many), ezines (if I'm lucky), and a mention or two elsewhere (I may be exaggerating).... Drmies (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Having released two albums with an important independent label, meets criteria #5 at WP:MUSICBIO. Mascot Records are defined as an important independent label (that doesn't necessarily mean notable) as it has a roster of performers[1], many of which are notable as per criteria #5. --JD554 (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note--I am not convinced that when Creepmime recorded these albums this record company was already notable (or important). Unfortunately they don't have an entry on WP or the Dutch pop encyclopedia (http://www.popinstituut.nl), so I can't prove that--but then, isn't the absence of evidence in this case the evidence of absence? Keep in mind that their last album was released in 1995, and I think that that was long before the label went international. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the label needed to be relevant at the time it signed the band. If it's notable now and the band is still with them (or was with the label while it was notable) then that's enough. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've shown it is an important independent lable, I think the burden of proof for saying it wasn't then must surely lie with you. --JD554 (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Happy ^Holidays 02:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--JD, the label is surely notable now, no doubt about it. Was it back in the early 90s? Neither you nor I know (there is simply no information available about where the label was at 13 years ago, and I've looked all over the place), but perhaps MGM is right, and then it doesn't matter. So, if there is broad consensus, as there seems to be, that the label's current notability is enough to render Creepmime notable, then I'll gladly stop wasting everyone's time and withdraw the nomination. I've already edited the article to where it reflects only verifiable information, which comes from one single source (the Dutch encyclopedia from Muziek Centrum Nederland), and Creepmime will live on eternally--but as a stub. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability doesn't travel backwards in time. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No one says it does. A band has to be signed by a notable label, which apparently this band is. Nowhere does time even enter the picture (WP:MUSIC doesn't mention it at all). "Singed" means "being under contract with a label", not the actual act of signing. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So--what if the band dissolved long before the label became anything at all? But MGM, my real concern is that in the end we'll keep an article that says nothing more than "this band existed, they made two records, and those guys (and this girl) were in it." I can't find anything that talks about who they were, what they did, how they were notable, or barely even what they sounded like. We'll have a band that meets one of the criteria, a band about which no one can say anything. Drmies (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about a compromise where we merge in the two album articles to the main article and leave it at that. Certainly the songs on the albums are verifiable right? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per ChildofMidnight. JamesBurns (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 00:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to merge of the albums, sure--I am still not convinced that the band should have an article, but this would be something already. Again, I restate that the article, with or without the albums, is not going to get any better than this--eternally unsourced. Oh, I don't know if those titles can be verified other than by metal blogs, but that can be checked out. Thanks CoM, Drmies (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I defer to your expertise in this subject area. Let us know what you uncover once you've merged the albums and had a chance to verify the album information. If only it were Tina Turner or Flock of Seagulls I could be more helpful. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChildofM, I followed your advice and hope I did it right--my first merge! Joepie! I'll keep at it, to try and add some solidity to band and albums (though I have little hope--where's Blackmetalbaz when you need him?). So in the meantime, dear administrator, I think I should withdraw this nomination so we can all get back to more pressing matters. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.