Talk:Blood of Angels

This article was nominated for AFD But has been given another chance. I'd like to bring this up to WP standards, and work was already underway to do that when it was deleted. The cited reason for Afd was notability, but the band has charted on Billboard for the past 3 years so they are notable per WP:MUSIC #2, the album being in their discography is notable per Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums, singles and songs which states: In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. The theme of the album was the topic of an hour long discussion at Dragoncon on a panel entitled "Blood of Angels," the vocalist being the guest speaker, who with the band is likewise notable per #5 having considerable coverage in a subculture. Four 3rd party refs were added since it was nominated for Afd. Comments are welcome. Ebonyskye (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Belanger

The wiki entry for Michelle Belanger was deleted back in November of 2008, citing notability and promotion [1]. However, there is now sufficient proof that the delete discussion was poisoned by sock puppets [2] that it might deserve reconsideration if a less promotional article is developed. Once finals are over, I will likely start collecting references that fit WP:RS. Ideally it would be sufficient to prove #5 and support inclusion.

I very much believe there has has been some sort of criteria against the artist by certain individual(s). There was even an entry on Z. Budapest targeted for deletion[3] I believe simply for having a link to an interview with both Budapest and Belanger[4]. Now that the primary instigator, or at least the puppets, has been silenced, that should allow the development of solid and well supported article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk • contribs) 02:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Well, I see now that 2 of the voters were sockpuppets. Unfortunately, I don't think that's going to change the minds of the 2 admins User:Chzz who nominated for delete, and User:SilkTork who deleted it (at least I think they're admin). I think the best hope for this is to expand it. Find better refs, or if that can't be done, merge it to the main article. But that leaves all the others separate, and that just looks really sloppy. I'm going to go through the history and find the refs that were previously removed by the sock. Ebonyskye (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that User:SilkTork was only following what might have been perceived as consensus. Considering that User:SilkTork is willing to work with us on getting the article up to snuff, I would not say that that all hope is lost. As for User:Chzz, I cannot say what the motivation was. But if there is enough to support the album is notable, then it will stand. What I find most frustrating about this process is the lack of real, tangible definitions about notability.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeez. I've spent more time answering talk pgs than actually writing anything meaningful! It seems that an issue from 2 years ago has popped up, all because of THIS article. So, I need to step away for a cooldown. Otherwise, I'll say something I might regret. It's not your fault, so don't be discouraged. I just need a few days off. Ebonyskye (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

SilkTork is not really able to "work with us" on the article, being busy on other stuff, but is not totally against it either. And is at least willing to give the article one more chance. Just don't bug him to look at it until it's really ready. Keep in mind there's only like 26 days left or it'll be gone for good. It was only given a month to get it up to standards. I'd better find a calendar. I think I'll email the band too and just ask them outright if there's any news stories we don't know about. They post quite a lot on their site as to interviews, but maybe there's stuff they don't post online. I've not read any of Belanger's books. If you have, or if this music is mentioned in anything written by a "reliable (third party) source" it might help. Ebonyskye (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the way. It seems we as editors spend more time in discussions about an article than actually editing articles. Take time off for yourself. Remember, even if the userfied page is removed, the code can still be saved and the sources worked on. Appeals don't have to happen right away. It's better to take a little time and have a solid, well sourced article that will stand up to review.

I've read some of Belanger's work. But mostly what I am looking for at this point are articles about Belanger and appearances in the news. If I find anything in any of the articles, I will definitely pass it on.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Progress?

I'm not seeing much progress toward notability on this. The article cannot be returned to mainspace without an explanation of notability and reliable sources. The main additions to the article have been comments from the liner notes, which do not aid understanding of notability. SilkTork *^YES! 10:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Early on (before the derailment of this article with the AFD of the Michelle Belanger article), the concern for keeping this album article was notability of the person Michelle Belanger. We now know that the deletion of her article was in part due to sockpuppets stacking the vote against her. Also, the original admin who deleted this article didn't seem to understand that the album was a collaboration and also did not seem to consider the notability of Nox Arcana (being on Billboard and having 10 albums). AND, one of the voters to AFD this page was also one of the socks to vote on the AFD of the Belanger page, was it not?

So, I have taken what was here, added a bit of what was edited on the Michelle Belanger article, used proper citation templates, added new facts about the recording, added 3 new cites (the ones supporting the Watcher myths) and the feature article on the subject in Dark Realms, and deleted some of the redundant or trivial stuff (though I think that the band recording this in 5 days is rather surprising so I added that plus the timeline according to statements made by Vargo in the Flame Rising interview.).

The issues that resulted in this article being deleted were only partly the notability of Belanger (which has now been established), and partly missing or unverifiable citations (which have now been added and can be verified), I think this article could be given another chance in mainspace. What do you say? Ebonyskye (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article yet. But the notability of Belanger doesn't neccessarily tranfer to topics she is related to. An arguement that Belanger is notable, therefore her album is notable, is not a secure one. The article on the album must be able to stand by itself. For further information see WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NALBUMS, WP:PRODUCT. The consideration is: first, are there reliable sources to establish the notability of the album; second, is the album best dealt with in a parent article; third, which is the most appropriate parent article. My feeling is that there is material enough for mention of the album in a parent article, but not enough to establish notability for a standalone article; and that the most suitable parent article is Belanger's. SilkTork *^YES! 09:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The references in the article are such that it can be said that the album exists. There are no independent reliable sources to establish notability. Press releases and the publisher's and/or artist's own websites are not generally accepted as reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability - see WP:GNG. The best source within the article is the musicstreetjournal.com interview with the publisher of the album, and that is not appropriate as it is the publisher speaking, the source itself is questionable, and the quote is "We just finished a new album called Blood of Angels with our friend, occult author Michelle Belanger. She has a beautiful operatic voice." which mentions the album in passing, and doesn't assert any sort of notablity. The Dark Realms interview is in a publication which appears to be published by Vargo, who also published the album. Essentially, there is nothing independent and reliable. As some work has been done today on the article, I will allow more time to work on this. But let me stress that what is needed are independent and reliable sources talking "directly in detail" about the album. An example would be a review in Rolling Stone. I will look at this again at the end of June. SilkTork *^YES! 10:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Progress? or Stymied?

OK, according to the points made, these statements per Wiki policies indicate the article should stand alone. The argument for stand alone is stronger than for delete, maybe not by a huge margin, but it is a better candidate for an article than for death.

• Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums.

Thus, in keeping with the format of all the other Nox Arcana albums, this too should have a separate page for ease of navigation and formatting.

• Wikipedia:NALBUMS In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.

Nox Arcana and Michelle Belanger are both notable. Nox Arcana and Belanger are both artists who have charted on the Billboard Top 10 Holiday Chart.

• Wikipedia:GNG Do reviews count? I don't think you have taken the reviews into consideration (they are listed in the album info box). Obviously several magazines (even one in Argentina) thought enough to write it up.

And, as for Dark Realms, Joseph Vargo did not write the article. It was written by Devon King, who also wrote a lot of music reviews in every issue. I have read the magazine and there are always about 10 different writers, sometimes more. The only things I've ever seen written by Vargo are horror stories, and not in every issue, but just a few here and there. He did one interview with Blackmore's Night (issue 10), and of course he does the art for the covers. Just look at all the issues they published.[5] and [6]. You can't expect one person to have written all that AND write music for 10 albums. It's impossible.

Seriously, I think it will totally mess up the flow of the Nox Arcana discography to remove this one album. And even the person who nominated it [7] only has a problem with RS. And just how many RSs are required? There is no rule as to how many. Only that it get coverage from a RS. And it has. And does it belong more with the music article, with the band that released 10 albums, or with the personal biography of one person, which keeps getting deleted and is in danger of another round of same whenever someone else feels like it.

I really think it should stand alone, then both the Nox Arcana article and the Michelle Belanger article can link to it. After all, the album is a collaboration. They are not in the band together. They are three people who got together to make an album. So, if only for the sake of formatting it just makes sense to leave it on its own page. Ask User:Chzz if the added RSs (including reviews and All Music [8]) will suffice, or if yanking out the album will mess up the flow of the discography. Ebonyskye (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the reviews. They help. But the sources are not giving me a warm fuzzy feeling. The Argentina one is a webring blog. I'm not sure what point you are making regarding the discography - why would you need to remove this from a discography?

My concern with Dark Realms is that I wondered if Joseph Vargo was the publisher of the magazine. SilkTork *^YES! 20:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

With regard to discography, you might notice how each of the 10 album pages link to the next album in succession (and back again) using the album template, (located just beneath the cover image). This is album #6. And when you go from album 5 Carnival of Lost Souls this album being deleted or having the album template removed (as it is on the Belanger page) breaks the chain. There's no way to go to albums 7...10 or backwards to 1. The band has also just announced an 11th album [9].

I still don't get it. I went to Carnival of Lost Souls and clicked on the Blood of Angels link which took me to the appropriate section on Blood of Angels. I don't mind looking into reasonable arguments for keeping the article, but that's just clutching at straws. What you have to do is find some reliable sources which confirm the notability of the article - any other argument is just wasting time. SilkTork *^YES! 14:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As for Dark Realms, the publisher indicated inside is Monolith Graphics, and Vargo owns the company according to his bio. But, like I said, the magazine was filled with stuff from many other writers, artists, musicians. They had tons of book reviews, short stories, cd reviews, and from all over, even overseas. It was a pro magazine, carried in Hot Topic, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, others. I got my copies from a local news stand every 3 months like clockwork. They never had a late issue. They only stopped publishing in October 2008. But that doesn't mean it's not a reliable source. They interviewed Laurell K Hamilton in issue #4 and I'm still trying to get a copy of that issue. It sold out fast. Devon King also interviewed The Rasmus in Dark Realms before the band made it big in the US. In fact that band might be my next project. Ebonyskye (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:GNG says: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject. As Vargo owns the publishing company of both the album and the magazine, it is not an independent source. That means it is OK to use the source for detail, but the source is not acceptable as proof of notability.

I appreciate you have a strong desire to see this article as a standalone, but unless you can produce a reliable source which confirms notability by the end of the month I will delete it. Information on the album is contained within Wikipedia - but our rules forbid this article being moved back into mainspace as a standalone unless a reliable source is found. SilkTork *^YES! 14:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to appear dense. But, didn't we already establish RS with the article on Flamesrising.com? THEN when Drmies complained that the Flamesrising article ONLY established notability for the album but NOT for Belanger, I found the Dark Realms article, and that was accepted for notability on Belanger. Now all of a sudden it does not apply to the album? I give up. Ebonyskye (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I merged this album page with the author page. I hope that works for everyone. Please note I used the album template so as to avoid breaking the links between the other 9 albums in the Nox Arcana discography. I only removed one redundant statement (at the end regarding, URN and saying the Belanger is an author) due to it already being established in the upper portion of her page. I also copied over the other refs and ext links that were on the album page, as they all serve as reference. Ebonyskye (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

By the by, if you're OK with the merge and formatting, feel free to delete this page anytime. Ebonyskye (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blood of Angels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080329225248/http://www.dragoncon.org/dc_guest_detail.php?id=1501 to http://www.dragoncon.org/dc_guest_detail.php?id=1501

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)