Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rishloo (4th nomination)
- 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. henrik•talk 07:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Rishloo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Band does not appear to meet notability standards. Albums independently released. No charting or major awards. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. The closest to a good source is the studiorock.ro interview but that fits into "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". None of the other sources provided are independent reliable sources, a bunch over user submitted or band written pieces. Nothing but listings found. Only change since last afd is that they are hoping to release a new album. This should be deleted for the ninth time. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. This is the fourth AFD, and the first 3 have all closed as delete. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I understand the wiki guidelines for musicians, they are quite unfavorable for Indie/independent bands who, through their own efforts, manage to release more than one album and tour at their own expenses. I believe that the way social networks or streaming pages are built today, they should also count as indicators among other criteria used there (number of fans, listens, etc).
Also, for number the number 10 criteria in the guidelines: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable....". Why not include bands who are featured on musical games such as Guitar Hero and Rockband? They must have their own sorting mechanism and it should be an achievement that someone's music has made it on their soundtrack. I don't mean to piss off anyone here, but I'll personally re-create the Rishloo article once they release the new album - if the article gets deleted. And whenever I find a new source. Lakeoftearz (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The notability guidelines aren't so much meeant to be "against indie" as much as it is keeping every little nobody who creates a band, does it for 5 months/weeks/days/hours, and goes nowhere with it, off of Wikipedia. Without it, Wikipedia would be littered with no-name (and probably sometimes outright fake) bands all over the place. (That's nothing against Rishloo, I'm talking in generalities.) As far as making something like Guitar Hero a means of establishing notability, that could hypothetically be possible, but this article's AFD discussion would not be the place to change a policy for music in general. Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (and salt) - "Delete" per the last three AFD decisions, and that nothing has changed since then. "Salt" because it's the 4th time here at AFD, so clearly it's an issue. (Not to mention there's a user already threatening to make it again...) Sergecross73 msg me 15:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the purpose of guidelines and I wouldn't insist had it been, like you said, a band with 5 months of activity and going nowhere. I just believe that 4 released albums, last.fm stats and an activity of 10 years could make it a wiki article. I didn't mean to sound like a threat, but more like I'll make a new attempt at re-adding the article once the band'd discography has extended and hopefully more sources for it appeared. I don't plan to just write again the article and have the same issues with it again Lakeoftearz (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but Last.fm stats and releasing albums that don't chart don't establish notability. Also, this "WP:SALT" that people keep mentioning, it would prevent you from recreating the article unless you get help from an Admin...so your comments about recreating it in the future, even if there's consensus to delete, comes across as pretty empty. (And the fact that you keep saying you'd do that, probably just make it all the more likely that it would get salted.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, on the next attempt (if I'm the one re writing the article) it would have to be by asking some Admin in order to avoid getting to the same stage as now. But as mentioned below, the band announced their split with the singer so at this moment in time I guess there's no reason to object current deletion, as the band's future is uncertain. Lakeoftearz (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The band actually said at the same time as announcing the departure of the vocalist that it would also be the end of Rishloo. The remaining members will carry on working together (and are actually planning to head into the studio next month), but they'll be doing it under a new name. Their planned vinyl release of the "Feathergun" album will be the last Rishloo release. Presumably, they're probably taking the material from "Living as Ghosts with Buildings as Teeth" and turning it into their new project. MightyJordan (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, on the next attempt (if I'm the one re writing the article) it would have to be by asking some Admin in order to avoid getting to the same stage as now. But as mentioned below, the band announced their split with the singer so at this moment in time I guess there's no reason to object current deletion, as the band's future is uncertain. Lakeoftearz (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but Last.fm stats and releasing albums that don't chart don't establish notability. Also, this "WP:SALT" that people keep mentioning, it would prevent you from recreating the article unless you get help from an Admin...so your comments about recreating it in the future, even if there's consensus to delete, comes across as pretty empty. (And the fact that you keep saying you'd do that, probably just make it all the more likely that it would get salted.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the purpose of guidelines and I wouldn't insist had it been, like you said, a band with 5 months of activity and going nowhere. I just believe that 4 released albums, last.fm stats and an activity of 10 years could make it a wiki article. I didn't mean to sound like a threat, but more like I'll make a new attempt at re-adding the article once the band'd discography has extended and hopefully more sources for it appeared. I don't plan to just write again the article and have the same issues with it again Lakeoftearz (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have just edited the page to try and bring it up to standards, but also to reflect the fact that the band have now broken up. In this new state, would it be enough to avoid being deleted? MightyJordan (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh - is that like an artist's painting becomes more valuable after he's dead?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I meant is the page now in a good enough state to avoid deletion; the fact that they've split up doesn't add anything to the value of the page, I simply updated the page to add that in, as well as make it seem less like an advertisement, which is one of the main reasons the page is being offered up for deletion. MightyJordan (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only issue is whether the band is/was notable. The fact that an article reads badly may make it more difficult to determine, but, in and of itself, it's irrelevant. Here, the article has been determined non-notable many times, so most of what people are saying here is there's nothing new that supports notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed made involve adding facebook and youtube as sources (not [[WP:RS|reliable sources), stating that they have broken up and that they have a video (neither are part of wp:music) so no the changes do not show that they are notable. The nomination and the followup delete !votes did not mention advertisement, it's about notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I meant is the page now in a good enough state to avoid deletion; the fact that they've split up doesn't add anything to the value of the page, I simply updated the page to add that in, as well as make it seem less like an advertisement, which is one of the main reasons the page is being offered up for deletion. MightyJordan (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh - is that like an artist's painting becomes more valuable after he's dead?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2012 (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.