Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dethcentrik (3rd nomination)
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 no consensus. Black Kite (t) 00:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Dethcentrik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
recreation of article deleted at afd (21 Aug 11) with only superficial changes. albums not on important label. band still lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. inclusion on a Terrorizer's sampler cd is not significant coverage. of the other multitude of references they are either trivial coverage (like the mtv listing), are press releases or are not reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : While this article is not identical to the one deleted, it appears to suffer from the same problems. Basically though there are plenty of sources cited, it does not actually establish notability in the ways described at WP:MUSIC. It would appear from the references given that the band has received a lot of press coverage but most of the references are user submitted content, unremarkable blogs, or reprints of the band's own press releases. In general the references aren't what they seem to be. Take the ref ""Dethcentrik Video Banned By YouTube". MetalCrawler.net. 2011." for instance. No where in the linked review is any mention of YouTube. Some of them, such as the KBPI and Web of Metal contain no information related to the band. The Web of Metal page and the page linked on MetalCrawler are both nothing more than a link to the review on Metal Storm. There just isn't anything in the article to establish notability. The article and its references establish that the band probably does exist but that's not the criterion for inclusion. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep : I urge any closing admin to check every single source for themselves, and to also read the article thoroughly. I would like the closing administrator to please take into consideration the following: Two albums on a major label are one of WP:Music's potential requirements for notability, and two releases are available via IODA distribution, which is part of Sony Music Entertainment: link and the IODA has a long track record independent of simply being itself part of Sony Music. KBPI is a radio station, and airplay is another indicator of notability, while granted I might agree that not much information beyond a tracklisting, composer information, and information on what album the music is taken from is available on that particular site. WP:Music mentions "inclusion on a notable compilation album." So yes, inclusion on Terrorizer's CD is significant, not to mention the write-up on page 3. One of the authors on this deletion discussion tried to tag to page for speedy deletion as a re-post, despite notification from an administrator that is was not eligible. BusyWikipedian (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The albums were not released by IODA,they are only distributing it. KBPI is not national and there is no evidence of rotation. That sampler cd is not a notable compilation and the bands short blurb is not significant coverage by Terrorizer.
As for your last lie, the editors opinion that it was not eligible for speedy came after the tagging.duffbeerforme (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Information intended for everyone notifies you as well, and despite explicitly being stated on the talk page that the article was ineligible for speedy deletion 6 days before you attempted speedy deletion, you tried anyway. I encourage any deleting admin to additionally check the article's Talk page, and to read all comments on this discussion by Duffbeerforme and discern for themselves whether any of the user's actions regarding this page are done in good faith. BusyWikipedian (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed that editors opinion on the talk page. I withdraw my statement above and apologise unreservedly for my mistake. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Information intended for everyone notifies you as well, and despite explicitly being stated on the talk page that the article was ineligible for speedy deletion 6 days before you attempted speedy deletion, you tried anyway. I encourage any deleting admin to additionally check the article's Talk page, and to read all comments on this discussion by Duffbeerforme and discern for themselves whether any of the user's actions regarding this page are done in good faith. BusyWikipedian (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The albums were not released by IODA,they are only distributing it. KBPI is not national and there is no evidence of rotation. That sampler cd is not a notable compilation and the bands short blurb is not significant coverage by Terrorizer.
- Keep Article meets GNG, by having coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Specifically, the inclusion in Terrorizer and Metal Storm (both notable enough for their own articles on WP. Some of the others may be reliable (while I'm aware that much metal coverage is online rather than in print articles, I'm not entirely certain which ones are certainly RS), and if they are (specifically The Gauntlet and Braingell) then that further establishes notability. I'm not entirely certain if IODA qualifies as a major record label, though if someone with more music knowledge than me says it is, then this also meets WP:BAND. Overall, I believe that this article contains just enough information in reliable sources to qualify the band as notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which do you think constitute significant coverage in reliable, independent sources? Having a wikipedia article does not make a source reliable and does not make trivial listing significant coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I stated, the coverage in Terrorizer and Metal Storm definitely count, and it's possible that the some of the other sources also count as reliable sources as well. I admit that this article is on the borderline, but I believe that there is just enough coverage to meet [[[WP:GNG]] and thus be kept. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how an inclusion on a free sampler cd and the cd's track listing with a short band description (with no signs of it being written by Terrorizer) can be considered anything but trivial coverage. I also question the reliability of Metal Storm and do not call a cd review on such a webzine that wants everyone to send in their music for reviews to be significant coverage. I equate it with the local only type of coverage that is routinely dismissed at many afds. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article clearly states (to me) that it's not just that they were included in the sampler, but that they were discussed in an article in Terrorizer. If that isn't true (I don't have access to the source), then that is a problem, though not necessarily a fatal one. On Metal Storm...again, I'm coming at this without any knowledge of the field, and was relying on the fact that a review in a reliable source is generally considered to be a sign of notability (this is true not just for bands, but also for books, movies, etc). 07:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Terrorizer cd samplers are accompanied in the magazine by a page listing the bands and tracks on the cd with a short description. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They give the track number on the compilation, the track time, the record label, the release the song is taken from, and a short review. Dethcentrik's review for example reads:
"We love a new genre over at Terrorizer and black horrormetal sounded right up our street on paper. Until We heard it. This Colorado noise machine churn out sickening aural audacity that will make you ejaculate blood from all orifices, simultaneously. Actually that is right up our street."
And since the compilation itself is entitled Fear Candy and is regularly included with the magazine, I would qualify inclusion as both a third part article, and inclusion in a notable compilation. On a slightly related note, the band is on Pandora link to Dethcentrik on Pandora, iHeartRadio link to Dethcentrik on iHeartRadio, and Last.fm link to Dethcentrik on Last.fm. Of the three Pandora accepts the least music and Last.fm accepts the most music. That said, these stations are embedded in many newer radios, cars, and video game consoles. BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They give the track number on the compilation, the track time, the record label, the release the song is taken from, and a short review. Dethcentrik's review for example reads:
- Terrorizer cd samplers are accompanied in the magazine by a page listing the bands and tracks on the cd with a short description. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article clearly states (to me) that it's not just that they were included in the sampler, but that they were discussed in an article in Terrorizer. If that isn't true (I don't have access to the source), then that is a problem, though not necessarily a fatal one. On Metal Storm...again, I'm coming at this without any knowledge of the field, and was relying on the fact that a review in a reliable source is generally considered to be a sign of notability (this is true not just for bands, but also for books, movies, etc). 07:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- I fail to see how an inclusion on a free sampler cd and the cd's track listing with a short band description (with no signs of it being written by Terrorizer) can be considered anything but trivial coverage. I also question the reliability of Metal Storm and do not call a cd review on such a webzine that wants everyone to send in their music for reviews to be significant coverage. I equate it with the local only type of coverage that is routinely dismissed at many afds. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I stated, the coverage in Terrorizer and Metal Storm definitely count, and it's possible that the some of the other sources also count as reliable sources as well. I admit that this article is on the borderline, but I believe that there is just enough coverage to meet [[[WP:GNG]] and thus be kept. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to complete lack of indepth coverage in independent third party sources. Note that when an article opens New York, NY (Top40 Charts/ Death Incarnate Record) - A metal band ... it's crediting the article as being written partly by the subject, thus it's not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Definition of a major label Hope that clears up some information BusyWikipedian (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2011 (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.