Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sleepy Hollow (band)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Delete. No substantial argument raised below that WP:GNG is met -- Samir 20:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepy Hollow (band)

[edit]
Sleepy Hollow (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article subject fails WP:BAND. It was already previously deleted but has snuck back into Wikipedia. Like the previously deleted version no content is cited from a source meeting WP:RS requirements. No members, albums or their label have any notability to support keeping this article on Wikipedia. Suggest the name be blocked from recreation to prevent any future versions from sliding past the censors. Mr Pyles (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. They've apparently signed a deal with a record company called "Pure Steel Records". Whether or not this is a major label is up for debate. I'm not overly familiar with metal band labels.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Kind of leaning towards no, though. I've been doing a search and there really isn't much out there that would be considered reliable. There appears to be a sizable fandom, but this group falls under the same problems that most indie bands have: a fanbase but not enough coverage in what would be considered reliable sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Keep. I started the article several months ago, and others have added to it (including references from various websites around the world). The history page shows someone was trying to edit the page with information for a different band of the same name - this seems to indicate that there needs to be a new page set up for the other band, and this page edited to be called Sleepy Hollow (NJ band), as both groups seem to have public interest. Kimsuccess (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC) 6:21, 8 February 2012— Kimsuccess (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. I looked pretty hard but I just can't find enough reliable sources to show that this band meets any of the requirements of WP:BAND. They have a fandom but just don't have any reliable sources out there. There's more than a few blog and forum posts about them as well as various primary sources, but nothing that'd be usable. It's a delete vote from me.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Keep I believe it does meet the criteria, Pat Gesualdo is playing drums for the band and he is the founder of the D.A.D. program. He writes for Modern Drummer and is backed by many endorcers including Sony and The Giants. He has been in the news and is pretty well know. I believe the keyboard player was suppose to play on his project before he got into a bad car accident, but now he is working with the Sleepy Hollow band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.109.222 (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC) — 68.193.109.222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I live in New Jersey and have been following Sleepy Hollow since seeing them play in 2000. They were the only progressive/acid rock band of any note in the NYC area at the time. Other bands playing back then were all hardcore or punk music. There have been other bands in the same vein since then, but Sleepy Hollow started the trend. Sleepy Hollow has 4 CDs released. The last 2 CDs were recorded and mixed by Bob Both, James Brown's former recording engineer. Sleepy Hollow has a fanbase and a longer history than many other bands out there and are still actively recording/playing. Just because they're not a household name doesn't mean they shouldn't have an entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.183.68 (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC) — 69.126.183.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep They meet the criteria. They have been around for 12 years and have 4 albums. They worked with James brown engineer Bob Both and Kiss artist. They changed the music scene across the board. They changed it from Hardcore to Hard Rock gain. I saw them headline the Limelight in the city. They had to have a Punk band open up because there were no other bands like them on the scene. Now there are hundreds. They have repressed their EP 5 times I believe including vinyl. They also Headlined a couple of festivals in New York State. If you do your homework, you will learn that they have influenced bands like Iced Earth to Tori Amos. If this page doesn't stay, you will loose and important link in music history! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.235.88 (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC) — 68.196.235.88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 68.196.235.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep A band that has been around for 12 years (has 4 albums and a sizable loyal fan base) who has changed and influenced the hard rock scene in the tri-state area definitely has a place in Wikipedia. I've followed them since 2002 and have witnessed the sellout crowds at their shows. The production value of their shows and the crowds they draw are that of an established band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.243.75.4 (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The influx of SPA !votes, especially from New Jersey, suggest "quacking" to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Wikipedia is not a democracy. The flood of SPA !votes, which all may be from the same editor, are not counted against the consensus of this discussion. However, currently there is no consensus to take an action, in my opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 03:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious. Another !vote from another SPA from New Jersey.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Do you have proof of this claim that they've influenced a whole genre of music other than your say-so? I only ask because all of these claims lack reliable sources to back them up, especially when you claim that the entire music industry has changed their sound due to this band, yet there's a dearth of independent, reliable, (and most importantly) verifiable sources about the band itself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Comment. By the by, can anyone verify that there was actually an article about the band in the March 2004 issue of Metal Edge Magazine? There's no way of knowing whether this was an in-depth article or a brief blub and since the band's website doesn't mention anything about Metal Edge on their website, I'm a little skeptical about whether they were actually mentioned enough (or at all, considering some of the claims fans have been making) to count as a source.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • CommentI believe that there will be a major influx from NJ, seeing the band originates there and people take pride in entertainers from their area ie Bruce Springsteen & Bon Jovi. The guidlines allow for a band that made a major influence/change in their area for a musical style. All there was in the area in 2000 were hardcore punk bands. Now all that can be found in the tri-state area is hard rock. The Sleepy Hollow Band had a fantastic stage show which probably helped keep them in the public's mind. Just because a band is on a minor lable does not mean they will not influence major acts. I.E. The Misfits, who are from the same town, influenced the likes of Metallica and Guns N' Roses while the Misfits were on their own label. Pink Floyd also influenced the like of The Beatles and The Rolling Stones while they were on an indi label. There was footage of John Lennon going to see a Pink Floyd show that was recently released. Seeing that The Sleepy Hollow Band played New York City often, that allowed many musicians to step in and view the band live. They opened with the Theme to the Clockwork Orange and Dream Theater would follow years later, both being from the NY area and prog bands. If you listen to the mix on Goin Over and then listen to Tori Amos the beekeeper which was her next album after the first said release, you can hear the exact same sound that did not exist on her previous albums. Iced Earth released Framing Armageddon after Goin Over as well, which featured Hammond Organ on a thrash metal song for the first time in Bad Reflection. Iced Earth would feature Hammond organ for the first time on any of their albums, on their release after Goin Over. Theory of a Deadman's the Bitch came back was a direct rip-off of Two Too Late off of their first release. I am just throwing out some examples. Just because you haven't heard of it, does not mean they don't exist or made a major impact. There are plenty of wiki pages containing articles for subjects many are not familiar with. Before wanting to vote a page down, which would be a travisty to wiki, do some in depth homework. This band has sold for 50 to 100 dollars on E-bay. There must be a reason. Thank you kindly for taking the time to hear my comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.174.233 (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — 67.83.174.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Now the big flaw with your arguments is that there's a lot of coverage for indie bands such as The Misfits to prove that they had this influence over other musicians and that they were notable. The same could be said for other great non-mainstream bands such as The Cramps. Being indie and/or non-mainstream doesn't mean that you are exempt from providing multiple sources. It's also possible that you're seeing a lot of notability where it isn't, assuming that because one band started playing music that was becoming popular, that they were the reason for the change in music tone. It's entirely possible to say that the band themselves picked up on the sound due to influences from other musicians. To put it bluntly, you're claiming that a band that has little to no reliable sources about them is/was as influential as the Beatles, Siouxsie Sioux, and The Misfits, having altered an entire type of sound and inspired generations of musicians. It's just very hard to see how this is possible without some sort of sourcing such as the artists mentioning the influence (not the Sleepy Hollow band or fans, but someone like Tori Amos). Without these sources any and all speculation about the band's reach is original research and unproven theory. You can say that the band had this or that influence, but generally speaking most musicians and bands with that much influence are at least moderately covered in magazines, movies, books, and the like. These claims have to be proven and so far this seems to be mostly original research and puffery (WP:PUFFERY). If you want to save the article then you need to do it by way of things that you can show us with bonafide articles and such. Be aware that things not related to the band (such as links to an article about mosques that have nothing to do with the actual band) and primary sources do not show notability. The band can claim whatever they want on their sites, but you need to have multiple independent and reliable sources to show this notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete. I've taken my time to consider my !vote here, having looked at this a number of times and awaited further evidence of notability. I agree with Tokyogirl, Ravendrop, and Edison -- essentially, it appears, all the editors !voting here who have over 4,000 edits to their name. I recognize that this puts me at odds with a nearly equal number of editors/IPs, with edit histories ranging from this being their first edit to having up to 1 or 2 dozen edits to their name. But perhaps they are less familiar with your notability criteria, none of which this band appears to meet.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BAND and the WP:GNG. None of the "Keep" arguments are convincing, they just sound like fan(s) standing up for the band. Arguments that border WP:ILIKEIT and "they've got lots of fans and have been around" don't mean anything when there isn't significant third party coverage to back it up. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems like all the Delete votes coincide with a lack of investigating. Pat Gesualdo is a know name, and known to have worked with major names like Deep Purple and our 43rd president. There is a source of Fox news which is a major news company. This band has 4 albums out and a pure listen would subjigate the fact that they changed the scene. Please kindly read the criteria for a wiki page and you will see that they do have some of the criteria, of which, they do not need all. It seems quite coincidental that another Sleepy Hollow band popped on the scene at the same time the decision to take this one down was started. Might I suggest that this may be an attempt to open a new page for the other band of the same name. It seems odd that someone keeps removing the viable sorces such as web sites including fox news. If for example, looing at Jethro Tull's wiki page, they have the same kind of sources. Just a thought. Yes, I am a fan, that is why I carry an extensive knowledge of the band, but, I do know they have the criteria worthy of a wiki page. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.115.235 (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you dislike the !votes of all the experienced editors, but Sergcross is another editor with more than 10,000 wp edits, with a fine reputation for investigating. We simply don't see the requisite indicia of notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some reliable, third party sources backing up your claims? Also, Jethro Tull is not comparable in any respect. They are a popular classic rock band who's career spanned multiple decades, and whose article has over 35 references. Sleepy Hollow contains 10 sources, about half stemming from their own website or websites like "progarchives", which is deemed an unreliable source here on wikipedia... Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply Yes, these are reliable sources, and the comparason was not with the band, but, with the sources that are deemed exceptable. Why on the standard, is the Official Jethro Tull Web Site deemed a reliable source and the Official Sleepy Hollow band web site not a reliable source? Both are the band's official sites. I personally could care less if the page stays or not. I will always be a fan and keep up to date on new releases. I just feel that taking the Wiki page down will remove a VERY fundimental part of Hard Rock History. I had the pleasure of meeting Joe Dell in 2001, and he told me that the record industry had slammed them for being too "retro" and then in 2004, everything was retro, and the in sound. I believe the story he told me, was that the original bassist's gradfather was in the friers club and many alot of enemies. Therefor, closed some doors for the band. But, thousands of sales later, they are still around and a major influence. Great talking to you guys, and good luck to you as well, you seem to hate this band for some reason, but, one day, you might like them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.115.235 (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't hate the band, I've never even heard of them, I'm working purely on Wikipedia policy here. Anyways, first party sources are okay to use here and there, but not okay to establish notability. Somehow, I feel like Jethro Tull has enough reliable sources in those other 34 sources to pass WP:GNG. (And again, ridiculous comparison. They are an internationally acclaimed (and platnum album selling) band. It's like comparing Metallica or U2 to some band that plays local community colleges.) Additionally, all these off-hand personal anecdotes about grandfathers and whatnot don't help affect meeting the WP:GNG at all. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • view the website, I was just telling a story. I believe that there are viable sorces and Pat Gesualdo joining the band is big. One of the criteria is a member working with a notable band or persons. It takes one criteria and they are viable. The comparison was made to make the point, Wiki criteria is Wiki criteria across the board. If I am wrong, please show me where it says a major bands web site meets criteria and an under ground band's does not. That is like saying a rich sports figure is allowed to murder a person and get away with it, but a janitor needs to to prison. Rules are rules for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.115.235 (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You misunderstand me. Neither band's official website help's its notabiility. It's just that Jethro Tull has many other sources that establish notability. If you don't believe me, by all means nominate JT for deletion and see what happens. Also, regarding your "notable person association" argument: the best way to prove a person is notable is to look at their respective article. The fact that Pat Gesualdo doesn't have his own article probably isn't going to help that approach. Sergecross73 msg me 22:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Fox News article that keeps being referred to doesn't mention the band once. It's a short, rather trivial article that quotes that Pat Gesualdo, a band member. It probably wouldn't even help establish his notability, let alone the band, that again, isn't even mentioned. Sergecross73 msg me 23:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • replyNo need to question the Tull page, love that band. Just making a point. The Fox news artical is in what way trivial? It establishes Pat as a noteable person. It is a whole segment. He is the founder of the worlds largest music charity program and segemnt is a reference to that fact. References do not need to mention the band, they may mention a band member and refer to a project that they are involved with. The fact that it is a major news station makes it viable. Wiki is a site which allows the entire public to edit as they see fit a long as they provide a viable sorce. Just because an editor has a "name" does not make them better or more creditable when comes to a particular edit. Wiki is here to provide the public with advanced knowledge on a subject and by participating in a page's information, you are helping the public advance their knowledge. The sources used are not fabricating any knowledge. It is better for Wiki to be expanded rather than trimmed because of mear symantics. Please, on the next reply, copy and paste the section of Wiki Criteria that counters all the above mentioned resorced. Thank you so kindly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.174.125 (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC) — 67.83.174.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Hi. Are you by any chance editing from more than one location? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is already very short, and the first half of it is about the Rehab center, not especially him. Then there are two small quotes from him, and a sentence about the programs funding. Definitely not significant coverage on him as a person, let alone establishing his notability, let alone doing anything regarding this band's notability. It's such a huge stretch. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • response ok, no, I only edit from my home computer. Again, please comply with a copy and paste from the Wiki page criteria section stating the sources are not ceditable. I appreciate your opinion, but, I like cold hard facts. Please provide the requested evidence. Thank you kindly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.14.18 (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't follow who you're talking to, or what exactly you're asking for. Can you clarify some? Sergecross73 msg me 14:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello again, to you, Sergecross, please copy and paste the section of the Wiki criteria that states the references given along with articles to not meet the criteria for a Wiki page. Everone who is against the page aren't giving solid, hard, evidence. Just words. Please provide the evidence. Thank you kindly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.14.18 (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The policies are specifically linked to up and down this AFD discussion, and quite frankly, the fact that you 1) Don't know them. 2) Don't bother looking for them yourself and 3) Don't see that they've already been explained a lot -- isn't helping your argument or credibilty at all. But I'll humor you some:
        • WP:GNG is the "General Notability Guidelines". That's the part that backs up the part that people keep saying about how there needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources separate from the band itself. I can't break it down any better than what's in the link.
        • WP:BAND are some more specific guidelines that help determine the notability of bands/musical groups in particular.
        • The argument for deleting argue that this band doesn't meet that. They don't get much coverage from music websites, their albums don't chart, they haven't won any noteworthy awards, etc. Now, if it can be proven that they have done some of these things, then the article should be kept. However, they need to be from reliable sources, not random editors declaring that they like them, they exist, etc. There needs to be proof. Little to none has been provided. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Kudos to Serge, for his response.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply, oh, it allows 3rd party sources that check their facts, you know for a fact that these 3rd party sources are unreliable? Oh, and I do know the criteria, that is why I asked for proof. Again, the fox news is a MAJOR news station. Now, please copy and paste wear it is not allowed to show a project worked on by one of the band members? I know that one of the criteria is that a band member has worked with a notebale identity and I believe that Pat working with Deep Purple and President Bush Jr. is pretty credible. This is what I want to see copy and pasted, where that is not in the criteria. I know what the reliabel sources are and you are cutting it thin stating site like the Prog Archieves are not a reliable source. They are the internets encyclopedia of prog bands. You both obviously are not prog rock fans and have very limited knowledge on the subject, whether you have a screen name or not. Start listening to prog, get into the prog world, then find the sources that most people look for and you will learn more about the subject. I am not trying to be offensive at all my friends, I am just trying to guide you both in the proper direction. Oh, and the Tokyogirl can start to hunt as well, as long as it doesn;t take time away from her throwing doritos at her sisters. Thank you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.114.166 (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:ALBUM/REVSITE explains why "Prog Archives" is not an acceptable source. Knowledge of prog rock isn't necessary here at AFD, what's necessary is knowing Wikipedia policy, and what sources have already been deemed reliable or unreliable. (Additionally, I'm very active in editing articles related to Steven Wilson and Porcupine Tree, very much so progressive rock, so that argument doesn't work either way.)
            • While working with a notable person could help, it doesn't with this "Pat" person. I think that criteria is more relevant if this band had collaborated with, you know, Michael Jackson or Paul McCartney or someone like that. Maybe not necessarily that level of musician, but still, people clearly recognizeable in music. This "Pat" is nowhere near this level, doesn't have his own article to prove he's notable, and all in all very little is known about him anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just a tip. Being nasty and semi-insulting about or towards other editors doesn't exactly endear us towards you or your cause. In my case, I actually did do a rather thorough search of Sleepy Hollow, which is how some of the sources on there got onto the article in the first place. There just wasn't enough to make me believe that the band is as notable as you are claiming. The problem here is that you're cherry picking what rules you think should apply to the band and which shouldn't. The band isn't notable. The coverage they've gotten is minimal at best and as some are arguing about the sources that are about the band, the sources on the article are rather weak. Be aware that an article about a project that one of the current band members started working on before he joined the band does not give notability to the band. At most it'd give notability to him, but the project just isn't all that notable to begin with. The standards here are very, very strict and 99.9% of the bands out there do not meet these guidelines. I'm going to be completely honest when I say this next point and I don't mean it as rude: the people who are trying to say that this band has had a huge influence on the music world akin to the Beatles creating and influencing several genres of music is actually doing more to harm the credibility of the article than help. It looks and sounds like complete nonsense and you aren't helping your case by insisting that this band is responsible for even a quarter of the musical sounds out there. There is no hard proof that this is actually real beyond an anonymous IP saying "listen and you'll see". That's not proof. That's theory, original research, and conjecture. Without proof such as Tori Amos herself saying that she listened to Sleepy Hollow and got inspired, this is at best going to be seen a fan theory and at worst, an outright lie. The thing is, the band and their fans can claim whatever they want but you need independent secondary sources from reliable sources to back these claims up. On a side note, I'm going to let you know that I'm going to take this to the administrator's noticeboard. The arguing back and forth on this article is getting a little over the top and while it's not the worst I've seen, it needs to stop. It's not helping anything. (Plus the revert wars on the article itself is getting pretty old.) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sleepy_Hollow_(band)&oldid=1136108145"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy