Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FatalFear

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. Courcelles 13:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FatalFear

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

No indication of notability, and none of the sources given in the article are credibly independent of the subject: myspace, facebook, some blogs and a self-created record label. Passing mention in a blog hosted by Metal Hammer magazine does not seem to qualify as "significant coverage". Furthermore, the article was created by User:Dreaded209 (recreating an already deleted entry?), apparently band member Edward "DreadEd" Campbell which I have also nominated for deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for bands. There are no reliable third-party sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have though metal hammer magazine, notes as being on the tour of a world famous band and the fact the article has been edited by so many independant people including independant websites, would be proof enough. Perhaps your one of the people affected by the vocalist outspoken nature online (as he speaks out against religious persecution, racism and appearance based culture regularly all over the internet using his real name) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.234.181.119 (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I'm sorry, but almost none of the websites listed in the article are credibly independent of the subject. They are all either myspace pages, blogs, dead links, or otherwise promotional hype, and appear to be very much outside of what is ordinarily considered to be acceptable sources. In fact, as far as I can tell, the only coverage by a source that can honestly be said to be independent of the subject is trivial passing mention in a blog hosted by Metal Hammer. This is not "significant coverage" as would satisfy the notability guideline. If the subject is as notable and important as you seem to think, it should be a trivial matter to find ample independent sources (e.g., published articles and interviews in reliable sources such as Rolling Stone). Finally, although it doesn't matter for the deletion debate, I don't see any evidence that "the article has been edited by so many independant people". Rather, what I see is evidence that single purpose accounts have been the exclusive contributors to the article, and this is often a sign of a conflict of interests, such as using Wikipedia as a platform to promote one's own band. Wikipedia is not a free advertising venue, contrary to your plea in this post. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. I would also like to point out that wikipedia is not an advertising website. Articles on wikipedia are meant to display information giving a neutral point of view on the given notable subject. The pages sourced are a lot of myspace, last.fm, and blog pages; the sourced are definitely doesn't meet wikipedia standards. The articles have format and opinion problems throughout. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 20:24, 12 September 2010 (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.