Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arkam Asylum

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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arkam Asylum[edit]

Only recordings are on a label that's also up for AfD. Sources aren't reliable (e.g. Last.fm) or otherwise non-substantial. They participated at a few festivals, but that isn't a criterion of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have systematically AfDed both a record label and all the bands signed to it. To assume Good Faith for this would require me to believe that all of these articles, some of which have existed unchallenged for years, have simultaneously become non-notable. I find in incredible to believe this and cannot help wonder if you have some other agenda for this, rather than the best interests of wikipedia's article quality. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try and help but wonder. It is ok for you to assert bad faith, i.e. "tenPound hammer wrote here (diffs galore) that he hates this band and will never rest before they are deleted from wikipedia". If, in suspending your assumption of good faith you have nothing to fall back on but an assumption of bad faith, perhaps you just ought to assume good faith. Assume good faith is meant to work in the trenches, too. It is EASY to AGF for day to day stuff--I make a spelling error or revert another spelling error as vandalism. Where it is hard and especially important to do so is where you seem to have evidence (almost by definition circumstantial) of a pattern. Hammer nominates two articles for deletion, two points makes a line, right? No. This is where AGF steps in. There are 2 million articles on wikipedia. Some will go years without being challenged, but there is no tenure process for articles. It is entirely possible that a non-notable record agency would sign non-notable bands. Protonk (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No aspects of WP:MUSIC passed. tomasz. 14:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MUSIC 4 refers to international tours - a condition which was met by EuroRock 2001. It's in the nature of this scene that fans typically travel to festivals, rather than bands performing multi-venue tours. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverage of this band beyond blogs and tour notes. Protonk (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how many refs do you need? You have the Whitby official site for 2002, Infest 2003 and last.fm for EuroRock 2001. None of these are "blogs". That's two major UK festivals and one international festival. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A review. A bio piece in a newspaper or magazine. If they don't meet WP:MUSIC (festivals vs. international tours), then we have to rely on the general notability guidelines. In that case a mention in a schedule counts as a trivial reference (even if infest, last.fm and the whitby sites were RS--whether or not they are is immaterial). Protonk (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC is already met by the festivals. Of course the WGW official site is RS for a band list at Whitby! Similarly for Infest. Those are probably the two major UK-based festivals for the industrial / goth scene. Now last.fm might not be the most robust source ever for some extraordinary claim, but it's also perfectly adequate for a EuroRock setlist. If you allege that Arkham Asylum didn't play EuroRock, then I'm all ears to see your cited refs that disprove the reliability of last.fm. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2008 (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.