Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.O.B. (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 no consensus. Lots of sources provided, but of unclear reliability. ansh 666 09:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S.O.B. (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable band. Recreation of an article previously deleted via PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a two-sentence article apart from a brief list of records in the band's discography, and the band are not a notable band. Vorbee (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As WP:NRVE states, the current state of an article is not a reason to delete. A search in Japanese comes up with various sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], etc. There are also as many in other languages: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], etc. Some of these claim the band is quite influential in the grindcore scene, some talk of the influence on Napalm Death, some place their albums in top 10 or top 100 lists for Japanese punk or rock. I am not familiar with music-related sources on the net, however, so I don't know how many of these are RS. But there seems to be a good amount to consider. Michitaro (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But even the Japanese article is unsourced. Do any of these meet RS? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again the state of this article or that on the Japanese Wikipedia is irrelevant. The question is whether real RS exist out there that can prove notability (notability is not proven or disproven by the current state of the article). As I said, I don't know the music press enough to judge all these sources, but a few like Decibel look to be established sites, and there's at least one book in English (the Decibel article mentions that the band is also discussed in this). I specifically avoided blogs (and there are a lot of blogs which mention the band), so there shouldn't be anything like that here (though it might be that some of these are just glorified versions of blogs). I would have to defer to someone with more knowledge about music, especially Japanese music, to judge these, but I would say this article should not be deleted until these (and potentially other) sources are evaluated. Michitaro (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, I'm not commenting on the state of the article. I'm asking a simple question due to my lack of literacy in Japanese: do the sources you provided meet the English project's criteria for RSes? If not, offering them is a distraction and you should strike them. I referenced the Japanese article because these sources are not listed there. If they had been, I would withdraw the nomination. They're not there so that means one of three things: 1) the Japanese project doesn't have the same standard for sourcing articles 2) the band is so obviously notable in Japan, no references are required or 3) the sources don't meet the Japanese project's criteria for RS and they are not allowed to stand in that article. So again, without knowing whether they meet our criteria is key. Blogs don't meet our RS criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think it is rather unhelpful to state that the considerable time I put into looking for these sources is a distraction. AfD is a collaborative effort. I have done searches in both English and Japanese--which I might add is what anyone participating in an Japan-related AfD should try to do--but since my specialty is in other areas, I have offered the sources so that those with more expertise in music sources can judge them and not have to do as much searching themselves. It is as a service to others. I have also offered English sources, which you can check yourself (if you did what is necessary in WP:BEFORE, I presume you have already checked many of these, so it would be good if you detail what you thought of them). That said, it is unfortunately true that the Japanese Wikipedia has far too many articles that are unsourced. The main reason for that is not different standards, though one could argue many J-Wiki editors have little conception about what RS are and why they are necessary. The standards are basically the same as ours. The main reason is that the Japanese Wikipedia has a fraction of the number of active editors as the English version and there are simply not enough hands to check the over million articles (there are only 46 admins, compared to 1239 for the English version--even though the English version "only" has 5 times as many articles). This has been openly discussed as a problem. It is great when there are good sources for a J-Wiki article, but I have never made a presumption that if a J-wiki does not have sources, that means the subject is not notable. Again, we should not make the same presumption with an English Wikipedia article as well, per WP:NRVE. Also, per WP:OTHERLANGS, the existence or non-existence of articles on the subject in other Wikis is not relevant. We must make the judgement based on English Wikipedia standards. Michitaro (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't write that it "is a distraction". I wrote "If [your sources do] not [meet the criteria for reliable sources], offering them is a distraction and you should strike them. You clearly aren't reading what I wrote or you don't understand. I will return the favour. Not only did I do BEFORE, I found nothing to support notability. And since you're not even trying to defend that the links you found are reliable sources, I'll take it that they're not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I reiterate: I offered the sources to help the AfD, to ask if others with more expertise can judge them. You wanted me to not even try to offer sources unless I was 100% sure that they were RS, preventing other participants with more expertise from checking what I found. That is not a very productive attitude. Making presumptions about the sources based on what I can or cannot do with them--after I repeatedly noted my lack of expertise--is not good logic. I have not made an argument one way or another, but merely have asked participants in this AfD whether these sources prove notability or not. It's an honest question and I hope it can be answered. I have still not heard an argument from you why the English sources I found, for instance, do not help prove notability. Michitaro (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I reiterate: unless you can guarantee that all of the sources meet RS, please remove them. I'm not making any assumptions. I'm asking you to actually verify that your links meet our criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I am amazed. I've participated in nearly 400 AfDs so far and I don't think I've ever encountered a nominator who was demanding suppression of information relevant to the AfD. I of course will not do that because it is information relevant to the AfD and may be of use to others attempting to judge this band's notability. I will, however, leave it to others to decide whether this attitude helps your case or not. But in terms of your case, I must say you've done little to prove it. "Not a notable band. Recreation of an article previously deleted via PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO" is not an argument, it is an assertion. It offers no evidence; it does not clarify what searching was done and what conclusions were made about those searches. Since you said you did WP:BEFORE, I have asked you what you thought about at least the sources I found, and instead of answering a question quite normal for an AfD, you have demanded I remove those sources if I am not 100% certain they are RS, putting the burden on me, not on you yourself, the nominator, who was supposed to have judged all these sources already. Again, I have not made up my mind: I am waiting for some real arguments one way or another, especially from someone with more expertise on the music scene in Japan. You still have the opportunity to convince me. So in the spirit of helping this AfD (which has been my attitude from the start), I will try to answer your demands by at least listing a few of the sources that I found that seem to be the best candidates for RS. On the Japanese side, they would be [20] (an authored intro in Real Sound net magazine), [21] and [22] (a two-part history of grindcore in Japan in the Extreme the Dojo netzine with a significant focus on this band), [23] (a selection of the best Japanese grindcore albums in the IndiesMate netzine), and [24] (an intro and interview in Loft's magazine). For English, [25] (an annotated top ten Japanese punk bands list by the music critic Namekawa Kazuhiko), [26] (an authored intro to the band in Decibel (magazine)), [27] (Jason Netherton's Extremity Retained : Notes from the Death Metal Underground, which is in university libraries [28], [29]), [30] (Shane Embury's account of the albums that made grindcore worldwide, including this band), and [31] (this is a report in Exlaim on Rolling Stone Japan's section of the best 100 Japanese rock albums, including, of course, and SOB album). The Decibel article says that de:Albert Mudrian's Choosing Death: The Improbable History of Death Metal and Hardcore (also in university libraries: [32][33]) also discusses the band's influence, though it is not online for me to check. Again, I am not that expert on the music scene, so some who know better might say one or two of these are not RS; someone else might say one I did not select is an RS. But that's why I made them all available, so that others can help in evaluating them. Michitaro (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I too am amazed that you once again missed the whole point. I'm not trying to suppress information but clarification. I don't know how you can be so dense as to miss that every time. Are the sources you proved reliable or not? And now we're at 33 sources and it's still not clear which are and which are not reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (collogue) 21:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you are not reading what I am writing. I have taken the sources I already provided and specified which of those, in my less than expert opinion, are likely good candidates for RS. I have done this in a honest effort to respond to your request. But despite that, you again refuse to even look at them (because you didn't even notice I am selecting, not adding new ones). I can only conclude your argument for deletion is frivolous since you refuse to consider any of the evidence. I am tempted to vote "keep" in this discussion because no serious arguments have been provided for deletion, but I return to my original position: that I have noticed many sources on the net, which I have provided in order to enable fair judgment of this AfD, and am awaiting more expert opinion. I will continue to wait for other opinions before voting. Michitaro (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading, but not buying claims that your best choices are reliable sources.

http://realsound.jp/artist/name/realsound_35472 has an author, Kazuhiko Ushikawa, and they have an editorial department, but Ushikawa is not listed there and with no staff page, it's not clear what Ushikawa's role on the project is. Not certain the site meets RS.
http://extremethedojo.com/page/special/verification/grindcore001 and http://extremethedojo.com/page/special/verification/grindcore002 may have an author (Jumbo), but no "about us" page and no indication that there is an editorial board. There is no author page either. Fails RS.
https://indiesmate.com/rock/grindcore/recording-6/3 no author. Site has no editorial board. Fails RS.
http://www.loft-prj.co.jp/interview/0310/06.html has an author: Namba Hatch but Loft Poject. I don't see the editorial board. Fails RS.
http://daily.redbullmusicacademy.com/2014/11/japan-top-ten-punk-hardcore has an author, Kazuhiko Namekawa with an author link: http://daily.redbullmusicacademy.com/author/kazuhiko-namekawa but no editorial board and it seems to be a loosely held-together lecture series. Fails RS.
https://www.decibelmagazine.com/2012/10/12/the-lazarus-pit-sob-s-what-s-the-truth/ author: Jeff Treppel with no author page. The magazine is published by Red Flag Media and likely has an editorial board, but it's not clear that the website follows those rules. There is a staff page: https://www.decibelmagazine.com/about/staff/ that lists Albert Mudrian as editor-in-chief. Likely a RS. (short interview though)
https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=pQ1bDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT153&lpg=PT153&dq=S.O.B+Japan+band&source=bl&ots=6baZqxmIRJ&sig=Y5H3OS0bGRb-0AeA358o7m_EZfk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjot5WMu8zXAhXEo5QKHTlUBWg4ChDoAQg-MAc#v=onepage&q=S.O.B%20Japan%20band&f=false a short entry in Extremity Retained: Notes From the Death Metal Underground. Source meets RS, but the brevity of the entry raises doubts as to the importance of the band.
http://www.johnpeelarchive.com/shane-embury a short review by Shane Embury on a blog. Fails RS.
https://exclaim.ca/music/article/finally_100_greatest_japanese_rock_albums_of_all_time a database entry without discussing any entry. Fails RS. Entries higher up on the list do not have articles either (Moon Riders, Rankin Taxi, Ippudou, Murasaki (not an article about the musician) and Zunou Keisatsu. I stopped at five). Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finally beginning to address the evidence. I appreciate that because some of the arguments you make are reasonable. Others, however, are not. I think your points about 2,3, and 4 are well taken and, unless someone with more knowledge about those sources can say otherwise, I believe we can put those aside. We also agree that No. 6 is likely an RS. The other sources deserve more debate. First, for no. 1, the name is not Ushikawa but Namekawa, and is the same critic cited in 5. If your complaint with no. 1 is that he is not listed on the staff page, the fact that he is a music critic with several books/articles to his credit [34], [35], [36], etc., should dispel doubts about why he is writing for that publication. So that makes No. 1 very likely an RS. No. 5 brings up the issue in WP:UGC, which is relevant to some of the other sources here: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." In other words, writing in publications such as blogs that are not necessarily regularly RS publications can be admissible if the author is a recognized expert. Namekawa may be a candidate for that, but I don't know enough about music critics in Japan to say (again, that's why I am waiting for more expert opinion). No. 5 thus may be an RS depending on that. This also relates to no. 8: not only is Embury one of the most important grindcore musicians, but John Peel is a highly recognized (OBE no less) figure in the music world. With regard to it being "short," WP:SIGCOV reminds us that the subject need not be the main topic of an article for it to be counted as significant coverage. This piece, from my experience, satisfies the standard. Your argument for no. 7 is debatable: the length of a mention in a single source is by no means an indication of notability. This is compounded by the problem that Google Books does not let you see the entire book to check if there are not mentions elsewhere. This book is an RS, but whether it is significant or not can only be confirmed by getting the book. Finally, your argument for no. 9 makes no sense. We cite best 10 or best 100 lists all over Wikipedia when they are produced by notable sources. Rolling Stone magazine is without a doubt one of the most important music magazines in the world and its Japanese edition is being cited here. You try to dismiss the list by noting that there are no English Wikipedia articles for bands higher up, but that is a highly dubious argument given that coverage of Japan on the English Wikipedia is quite weak. By your same logic, I assume you must agree this is a legitimate list given that most, if not all of these bands/musicians have articles on the Japanese Wikipedia (for instance, the five you listed: ja:ムーンライダーズ, ja:ランキン・タクシー, ja:一風堂 (バンド), ja:紫 (バンド), ja:頭脳警察, etc.). Last but not least, you did not address the issue of Mudrain's book. The Decibel article, which we agree is likely an RS, says the band is discussed in that book, and given WP:GNG, we should not be judging notability purely through what's online. I should mention here, as I noted in another recent music-related AfD, there there is the real problem that few of Japanese music-related printed magazines (and there are dozens of them [37]) have accessible online editions. I would bet there are a number of articles on this band in those magazines, but they would be hard to access. That is why I am still waiting for some more expert opinion, especially someone familiar with print coverage. You certainly have not convinced me the band is not notable, and I think the sources we have that are I believe likely admissible agree that the band was--as Issan Sumisu argues as well below--influential in its music genre. If anything, I lean towards keep. Michitaro (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have attempted to expand this article a little, providing sources to say that they were a significant influence on both the styles of grindcore and death metal (massive genres in the metal and punk worlds) and have inspired one of the biggest bands in hardcore Napalm Death; there is definitely a lack of reliable sources but, clearly, this band is extremely influential and thus notable. Issan Sumisu (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 01:05, 3 December 2017 (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.