Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catacombs (band)

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 keep. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catacombs (band)

Unnotable band that fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. Declined speedy with no reason given for the decline. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the speedy decliner to comment, and the reply was "It looks like there were sources provided which made me uncomfortable with speedy-ing it."[1]. The references are all to websites, so it seem difficult to determine whether they are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If the website has a staff that performs similarly to the fact/accuracy checking staff at a newspaper or book publisher (and they have a reputation for that), then that would seem to be a usable source. I don't know how you check the reputation. Does Wikipedia have a list of websites that qualify as a reliable source websites? That would make this much easier. Suntag (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is only ONE reference, to a directory-style listing. ELs are not refs. Of those ELs, almost all of them are directory style listings (like sticking in links to IMDB, AMG, etc on films) and none are WP:RS that could be converted to references. The review site Diabolical Conquest also does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:RS, having no visible history of reliable, neutral reporting, a small seemingly unpaid volunteer staff of fans, etc. (and alone it doesn't constitute significant coverage). There is no single list of websites that qualify as RS, just general guidelines. There are some known ones that are not (IMDB - user edited, any wiki/wikia, etc, blogs with a few noted exceptions, etc). Basically each site is evaluated against WP:RS as it is discovered/used. Maintaining a list would be nearly impossible because of the sheer number of specialist sites that are RS, but unknown to most who don't edit in that field. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did take a look at Diabolical Conquest and thought that they may qualify as a reliable source since the listed a "staff". Your point about "visible history of reliable, neutral reporting" seems interesting. Perhaps the website needs to have at least someone on the ground who physically goes to places to do interviews, write stories, etc. Suntag (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've always thought that Encyclopaedia Metallum is quite a reliable source. What about Moribund Records - are they considered reliable? Nameless Undead (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia Metallum seems to be put together similarly to how Wikipedia is put together. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Suntag (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, okay, nevermind Encyclopaedia Metallum. But what about Moribund Records? I already asked once... Nameless Undead (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reliable source, but as it is not a third-party source, but the album producer/seller, it can not be used to establish notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a reliable source, but I couldn't find any information on the site's operation to consider it a Wikipedia reliable source. If you think about the steps the New York Time takes (or any print news paper takes) to ultimately publish something and then think about the steps Moribund Records likely takes to post something on their web site, there likely is much missing from the actions of Moribund Records to make that site a Wikipedia reliable source. It also has ties to the topic, so it not a third party source. Suntag (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Delete since there does not seem to be enough reliable, third-party, published source material for a Wikipedia article on the topic. Please contact me on my talk page if you discover that this is in error. Suntag (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 102 to 104 of this book has some info. Suntag (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Multiple third party sources and reviews. Two releases on a notable label too. Passes WP:MUSIC with ease. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that the AfD notice is going to be removed? Nameless Undead (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not until the AfD has been closed. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but savagely trim the external links which take up half the page. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 5 September 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.