Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eternal Decision

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 to delete, therefore keep. Bucketsofg 17:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Eternal Decision

edit
Eternal Decision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No evidence from reliable sources that the subject meets WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. MER-C 08:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a Vote, Just a Question Mer-C, have you googled this band at this point? I see some information there, they are described on Answers.com and a few websites mention at least two full-length releases. I'm wondering if you consider these reliable sources, as you are more experienced in this matter. I'll read your reliable sources link in the meantime. Thanks, --Tractorkingsfan 09:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to know why it was put up for deletion, the fact that they have 3 full releases can be seen simply by clicking on their official site link from the article, I sourced the fact that ther song "hunger" has been mistaken for metallica, see the talk page for the article Saint Anger where will you see one user has commented questiong where the song is from, or look on here where it appears people think its a secret metallica/megadeth collaberation. The fact that the band is a Christian metal band only increases their notability as there are not a whole lot of them. The are also on Metal Archives and all the sites like that. --E tac 09:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the information about their releases on the band's own website, while probably true, does not in itself satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for verifiable information from reliable sources. The source cited must be independent; anyone can conceivably publish any information about themselves. As for Metal Archives, I believe I agree with you, but I'm holding for Mer-C's response to my initial question. --Tractorkingsfan 09:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self published sources and directory entries aren't reliable. You still have yet to provide evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. MER-C 09:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um well what else is their on the internet? How the hell can something be on the internet and not considered a directory since everything on the internet is added by people???? --E tac 09:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that good enough? all 3 albums for sale, this is ridiculous that i have to prove to you that they actually exist

Comment Nobody is claiming that that the band or albums don't exist. What is at question is whether or not the guidelines at WP:MUSIC are being met. Just because something is real doesn't mean it gets an article. janejellyroll 09:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After careful consideration, I must agree with the nominator. They exist, sure, but the issue is the notability criteria listed in WP:Music. They have released three albums, but none of those on a major label or recognized large indie label; Godfather records is described as a label they founded themselves. As far as directories, these are considered to be works that provide only trivial coverage: release dates, titles, and so forth. If the albums were released on a major label, or they had won a major award, or really any of the other criteria, that would be one thing, but the absence of any major coverage by a non-trivial published work trumps all other concerns in the meantime. --Tractorkingsfan 09:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought wikipedia is NOT A DEMOCRACY WP:NOT.....

What do you mean?--Tractorkingsfan 10:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why is this being settled by a vote??? I honestly don't see how a bands whos songs have been mistaken for the biggest most succsesful heavy metal band in the word fails to meet notability... --E tac 10:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, now you're arguing they deserve an encyclopedia article based on a resemblance to somebody who deserves one? And while we are voting in a sense, we really aren't; we're trying to establish consensus based on the most compelling argument, which at this point seems to be "delete" on the grounds that there are no reliable sources indicating this band meets our notability criteria. See WP:DDV--Tractorkingsfan 10:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh I didnt say keep them just because they sound like them, but the fact there mp3s were being disguised on filesharing programs as their songs and people were believing it, just like james labries solo album was mistaken for the new dream theater and that ayreon song with bruce dickinson was labled as new iron maiden. I am sure both those instances are probably mentioned somewhere on wikipedia. I didn't even say that was the only reason. They have 3 albums, also when adding bands to a list, most lists require the band to have a page, so for example the list of christian metal bands page would not be allowed to have eternal decision on it since they do not have a page, even though they are a very notable band for that genre. --E tac 10:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think it is pathetic how notabilty is just a fancy way to say popularity, where can i argue against this policy? --E tac 10:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think a policy should be changed you can discuss it on the talk page of that policy. In this case Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). James086Talk 10:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The policy is not a fancy way of saying 'popularity', at all. This band does not have multiple, verifiable sources. If they are notable within the Christian Metal genre, then why has nobody ever written about them? This isn't a vote, if thirty people suddenly said 'keep', then the article would not be kept. This is a discussion. We discuss the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and try to come to a conclusion as to whether the article deserves to be kept. No decent reason has been given as to why this should be kept. J Milburn 12:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain: I am now going to abstain, for I feel I cannot make an objective descision on what is now a borderline case with E tac being so abusive. J Milburn 12:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple verifiable sources? they are all over the internet at sites that they do not run....I am confused as to what they need to have written about them. Here is an articlewritten about them on yahoo music, is that not verifiable? It says their first record saw release in 16 countries and achieved considerable acclaim. There are plenty band articles in the black metal genre that have no more or even less verifiability than this simply because like christian metal it is a more underground scene and yet noone contests those, this is why wikipedias policy is a joke. If a band isn't on MTV selling millions of records it is not notable...give me a break.--E tac 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: E tac, what you are saying is a joke. The music I like isn't exactly commercial- check out Voltaire for instance. He is my favourite artist, and no, he is certainly not on MTV and selling millions of records, but look, he is very much notable, and I am able to write a well sourced article on him. There is a difference between obscure and unusual, and non notable. Voltaire is obscure and unusual, my friends' band (which performs in the village hall, our school hall and the local clubs) is non-notable. J Milburn 22:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You sourced it from his official site, the record labels official site, and the bands official myspace...hardly reputable sources from what I have learned from the discussion going on here. And seriusly comparing them to a bunch of high schoolers in a garage band...they have 3 full length releases that have seen release in 16 different countries. --E tac 09:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As well as three independent interviews and an independent biography. Anyways, if you had actually checked the links, you would see that, despite the fact that they were hosted on the Projekt Records website, a lot of the time I was referencing the comments in the reviews that had been placed below the information. Projekt Records post hard, fast information (which is fine to source) and then they take independent reviews, from palces like allmusic.com and numerous magazines, and place them below. Admittedly, they will no doubt take only the best reviews, but I am still quoting independent reviews, whether or not they have been placed on the site. J Milburn 11:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I sourced 1 independent interview, and an independent biography, I could probably find more interviews but the information doesn't currently require it. So why did you vote delete? Just because you never heard of the band? --E tac 12:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: E tac, I find you very offensive. Maybe now you do have claim for this article to be kept, but I am going to abstain from voting, because I do not feel I can make an objective decision on a borderline case when I have you being so abusive- perhaps there is nothing wrong with what you are saying, perhaps this is one of those cases where something irritates me for no fair reason. If it is, I apologise. J Milburn 12:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:MUSIC; I don't see any reliable sources outside of self-submittable bio sites and forums in the 673 Google hits that I get searching '"Eternal Decision" band'. The record label doesn't seem to have a website, so I can't really call it notable. Always willing to reconsider if sources come forward. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CMC central doesn't list Mortification either but they are one of the most well notable christian metal bands.

or Contemporary Christian Music Magazine. WP:MUSIC mentions allmusic as a reliable source, but I'm not sure that one mention makes them notable. Full disclosure: I recently had a disagreement with one of the supporters of this article, and found this AfD through his talk page. I'm not voting for this reason. --Djrobgordon 03:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment We have, in my opinion, very reasonable criteria for inclusion of bands on WP:Music. Anyone who proves that this band satisfies any one of those criteria will carry the day here very easily and the article will not be deleted. However, both advocates of the retaining of this article seem only able to scoff at the very notion of this article being deleted, without providing solid evidence as to why that is. (Don't take that as an attack, E tac, I know you're trying). Sometimes a deletion debate carries an article to the next step in terms of quality, by forcing editors to provide verifiable sources for things like notability or risk losing the article. Simply calling the idea of deleting the article ridiculous though, doesn't really help much. --Tractorkingsfan 02:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would disagree with that, it simply could have been tagged for needing citations, then after awhile if noone did that then it could be nominated for deletion? Isn't that a more civil way of handling it?--E tac 07:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. In this case, though, I think the claim according to the nominator -- and I don't think this claim has been proven false as of yet, hence my vote -- is that no acceptable sources exist, and that therefore the article's central claim of notability cannot be validated. So putting the unreferenced tag on the article wouldn't have solved anything. The article is up for deletion on the grounds that there are no reliable sources to reference. At least that's my understanding. --Tractorkingsfan 08:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have a biography on AMG which wikipedia says is a reliable source--E tac 09:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response From WP:Music, a band is notable if:

"It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries except for the following: Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble." One entry in Allmusic, which Wikipedia does certify as a reliable guide or source, does not constitute multiple non-trivial published works. Now, if that entry certified that the band hit any of the other criteria, such as two albums on a major or large independent label, or a charted hit in any country, or had won a major music award, or had a record certified gold or higher in any country, then, once again, that would be another matter. Furthermore, the biographical entry you cite is so blatantly laudatory that it reads exactly like a press release, which is clearly disallowed by the direct quotation above. So far, the fact still remains clear that this band has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, and the one work you have cited does not confirm any of the notability criteria being satisfied. --Tractorkingsfan 09:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course like this article Heavy Trash here you have created... --E tac 09:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion is about Eternal Decision, not another article. "Well, Wikipedia has other articles that don't meet the standard . . ." is not a valid argument for keeping this particular article. janejellyroll 09:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um well he is the creator of it and is arguing like hell against this one and I'd like to know why, maybe he should nominate is own less notable band article for deletion . Also I added more sourced info to the article if anyone bothered to even look at it and I will continue looking for such. Perhaps he do the same because I'd say his article is notable enough and I'd support him if an AfD case were brought up against it, at least I would have had he not been acting like the total hypocrite he is here.--E tac 09:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Again, from WP:Music, a band is notable if it:

"contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable." Like, say, Jon Spencer of Jon Spencer Blues Explosion. The difference between the two articles you cite is that, in the case of Heavy Trash, the Allmusic entry confirms notability according to the criteria established for bands on Wikipedia. In this case, the Allmusic source is enough, because notability is confirmed. On the other hand, the allmusic entry on Eternal Decision confirms none of the criteria. So the absence of multiple works makes it obviously deletable. A careful reading of my comment above should have made this clear. However, it seems you feel the need to be sarcastic and personal about this situation, which I don't appreciate. If you want to put the other article up for deletion, go ahead, if it doesn't belong here, it doesn't belong here, I'm not going to cry about it and try to attack everyone who wants it deleted. --Tractorkingsfan 09:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And calling me a hypocrite is bullshit dude. Excuse my language everybody. I think one article is notable, and the other is not; simple as that. Don't call me names. --Tractorkingsfan 09:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that somebody who makes a reasoned case for one article being deleted should face the potential of being called to account for every article they've ever created. This debate is about Eternal Decision. If you think Heavy Trash doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, you can bring that up elsewhere. You're accusing a user of acting in bad faith and there is no evidence of that. In any case, criticizing other articles doesn't have anything to do with this particular AfD. janejellyroll 09:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well my point is this AfD should never have been started in the first place.--E tac 09:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why, because you have heard of this band? You are yet to prove that they are notable, but you are still willing to accuse everyone else of being unfair when they say that they aren't. J Milburn 17:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well when people such as yourself are creators of articles with even less sourced notability are the ones going all out to attack this page, I think I have every right to claim this article is being treated unfairly.--E tac 21:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What on EARTH are you basing that upon? J Milburn 22:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained it here and attempted to on your talk page but trying to reason with you is like talking to a wall.--E tac 22:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even care anymore, delete the damn article.--E tac 22:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The band's existence on the internet consists of media promotion. The same press release is seen over and over again. They are listed on various websites - usually with the comment that there is no further information. This looks like a band and their fans using the internet to promote their name - nothing wrong with that, but the guidelines on music notability are worded to exclude such bands from being on Wikipedia. After some considerable time researching this band on the internet, I have yet to see any comment on the band that could be identified as having been written by someone other than the band promoting themselves. There is nothing significant at stake here. At the moment it appears this band is fairly clearly of little interest to the average music reader, so there would be no loss if the article were deleted; however, when the band manage to secure a name for themselves a Wiki article can be written at that time. SilkTork 23:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is my vote I guess for reasons I have stated above and on the article itself. No they might not be of interest ot the "average music reader" if there is such a thing, but for somone who is interested in their style of metal and more specifically Christian Metal they are noteable and are worth reading about. Noone seems to get that though, and just say my sources are a joke, but it is beyond the point of me really caring anymore. So I will refrain from discussing the article on this page and let the people who know what they are talking about sort it out. I hope you all have a nice day and I apologize to those who I apparently have offended. --E tac 23:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Must say, you've got my full support here. (I've never heard of this band, either.) It's almost impossible to argue against this in the face of clear "criteria", but instinctively I feel there's something wrong with this whole issue. Barbara Osgood 12:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote. In my experience in using AMG as a refernece, the very fact that this band has a written bio on them with AMG, is worth mentioning. Also, here are 3 solid independent album reviews, [1], [2], and a questionable one [3]. While I agree most of the links used for references on the page need to go, I believe there is enough independent verifiable information to keep, and I would be willing to help clean it up. Cricket02 08:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To All. I went in and deleted irrelevant links and cleaned up and added others to comply with WP:Music, WP:RS, and WP:V. Please re-review your decisions based on these, what I believe to be, independent non-trivial verifiable sources. [4] Thanks. Cricket02 09:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the article again after your edits and I still don't think WP:MUSIC has been met. I believe that the bios on CDBaby are submitted by the artists themselves. It's a great site for buying music, but I'd take all information found there with a grain of salt. janejellyroll 00:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more note: I can't find anything to verify the "Pure Rock Report", only on CDBaby bio which of course is not a place to actually confirm this assertion, so that reference should probably ultimately be removed. I am also unclear if the album reviews are professional, doesn't look like it. Still again, the AMG reference and independent interview seem enough to me. Cricket02 09:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The interview is unreliable, it is hosted on freeservers. I could have an 'interview' on there in a matter of hours. The CD baby pages appears to be user-submitted, certainly, towards the bottom of the page, it asks for user-submitted reviews. The other two are possibly valid sources, but they look rather short. Possibly counted as trivial mentions, or as directory entries. J Milburn 16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Taking a look at the album reviews, TheWhippingPost doesn't look to be reliable, as it is full of spelling mistakes and poor grammar. The other one looks to be reliable, but, again, is nastily short. I just don't think that these should be kept, but I am not going to vote, as I am probably biased in the matter. J Milburn 16:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have only just noticed that The Whipping Post is hosted on Tripod, and so, again, is discounted as a reliable source. J Milburn 16:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: All points taken. I didn't notice the interview was on a web hoster as well. I'm learning. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe this album review [5] at Tollbooth.org is valid. Here is a link about them http://www.tollbooth.org/us.html , says they are an on-line magazine with over 70 staff writers. Cricket02 18:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah, that certainly looks valid to me, but my only concern is its length. I don't believe there are sure fire rules for situations like this, and that is why we have these debates. I personally still don't think that it is quite enough. This band just does not seem notable enough- they seem like they are on the verge of being notable, have every intentiom of becoming notable, and are doing all that they can to do so. Maybe in a few months, but not yet, in my opinion. J Milburn 18:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Admittedly, I do see a problem with not being able to reliably source the notability assertions of the "Pure Rock Report" and "16 different countries". I do know that you can easily google information in other languages regarding an artist's releases in other countries, but I haven't the time to delve that far. I still support keep but if this article is deleted, I would encourage the author to bring it back when able to better prove notability, it is an interesting genre. Cricket02 19:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: "It was in 1997 that Eternal Decision's first album hit the record stores in the U.S. and 16 other countries, achieving considerable acclaim and providing the band with even more notice" from a neutral source (AMG) seems pretty notable to me. Tim Long 00:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The sources seem to be within the guidelines from what I can tell. The band is certainly notable to anyone who listens to the genre, I've heard a lot of their music before, so they're not entire obscure or irrelevant; they really are relevant in the Christian metal scene. The information is valid, and the sources that the information is coming from are also valid and reliable. I don't see any reason why this band should be considered irrelevant in regards to some of the other bands here on Wikipedia. A band doesn't need ten million record sales on a huge label to have an impact on a music genre. They've got the longetivity, the impact on a genre, the international release, the multiple albums, and everything else that you could possibly want a band to have in order to be notable. AdmiralTreyDavid 03:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think it is worth noting that I am continually removing the spam links to freeservers and tripod hosted websites- The Whipping Post and Art for the Ears are NOT reliable in any way. J Milburn 17:06, 2 February 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eternal_Decision&oldid=1171530771"