Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Metal Observer (2nd 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Metal Observer[edit]

This article absolutely does not establish notability. The sources given are almost entirely from the website itself, except for two citations to another blog. The last time this article was nominated for deletion, it was unanimously agreed upon that the article was not notable and should be deleted, but this has not happened yet. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was deleted. This is a recreation. The history of the article even has an edit summary on creation indicating it is a recreation with better sourcing. No opinion yet from me on whether it is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: recreated article. No notable independent 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now, I'm looking for some reliable/third-party sources, but If they exist I sure can't find them. Landon1980 (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What the ...? The nominator above has got it wrong. The original article was deleted. I re-created it. Since I have no way of viewing the original, I can only presume that the two are very different. The article does establish notability, contrary to the nominator's assertion. Two citations to another blog? There's no blog. Blabbermouth.net is quite possibly the most reliable source out there for anything related to heavy metal music. It is frequently used as a source in featured articles here on wikipedia such as Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer and Motorhead. Blabbermouth is by itself a source on news on google and is cited by other news sources as easily seen on that link. It has also been cited as a source in several published books. Describing blabbermouth as a blog is simply wrong, no question about it. Suggesting, as another editor did, that there is no notable independent 3rd party sources on the article is also wrong. Was it too much a task to look up Blabbermouth.net on the internet, wikipedia or google news? This premier news site for all things heavy metal music describes The Metal Observer as "one of the world's longest-running metal web sites" here and "one of the top international online metal resources" here. That makes The Metal Observer notable. --Bardin (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slippage is easy: these two entries on Blabbermouth are just that, entries, by contributors on a blog. They are not spoken by "the blog itself," as you claim, and so notability doesn't transfer here since I don't think there's an editorial board at Blabbermouth that checks and verifies each individual entry for accuracy and trustworthiness. Either way, I don't think transferability would transfer that easily anyway. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a blog. Yikes. Do you consider the New Yorks Time a blog too? If Blabbermouth is a blog, tell us please the identity of the these so-called contributors to the blog? --Bardin (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times is a newspaper. Not a good comparison. OK, let's drop the word "blog"--we are still left with "user-contributed," as this page suggests. Are you suggesting that Borivoj Krgin writes every single word on the site, or verifies every phrase and fact(oid) that comes his way? Mind you, I'm not saying it's not totally reliable in general. I just think that you'd need a bit more than this; an article from the New York Times would go a long way. --Drmies (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting news stories are hardly the same thing as writing and publishing news articles. Many other news media accept submissions in one form or another: New York Times, NPR (National Public Radio), Yahoo News, etc. Other forms of media focusing on music like All About Jazz or Allmusic also has a provision for user submissions. That does not make any of these sources a "blog" or unreliable. --Bardin (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot distinguish between the New York Times (the newspaper) and the New York Times blogs (at http://www.nytimes.com/ref/topnews/blog-index.html) then this will be a long and tedious conversation. Seriously, if notability has to rely on two mentions on a noticeboard (whether or not overseen by an editorial board or not, we'll let pass--and as it happens, I like Blabbermouth quite a bit, but I won't claim they're an authority on metal publications), then there is no notability. Those notes don't even add up to a sentence. Notability, per WP:N, requires independent, objective, verifiable, in-depth reference. None of these things are the case for this particular article. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While blabbermouth does the form of a blog, that doesn't neccesarily reflect on its reliability. That said "one of the world's longest-running metal web sites" is what Wikipedians would call Wikipedia:Weasel wording, or if you come across particularly terse ones, they'd call it PR fluff. The other statement is a personal opinion. Neither really establish notability. Independent coverage in multiple reliable sources: The Radiofabrik reference is not independent as it's written by someone related to the site and I can't check whether the book mention is non-trivial. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the world's longest-running metal web sites" do not qualify as weasel words becaue it is not evaluative, praiseworthy or critical. It is a mere statement of fact that presumably can be verified by anyone researching the subject. Your understanding of weasels words is a lot different from mine: I see nothing in that phrase that indicates hearsay or couch personal opinions in vague, indirect syntax, per the description of WP:WEASEL. The other statement is indeed of a subjective nature, but it's the sort of praise that the news media typically give to that which is notable. One can easily find similar phrases in the many featured articles on wikipedia, particularly those pertaining to media where other news organisations have deemed it worthy of praise. One can easily encounter mentions of a movie, song, album, musician, etc. being placed in some top 10 or top 100 list: E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Freak Out!, Jurassic Park (film), etc. All of those "top" or "most-something" lists mentioned in these featured articles are every bit as subjective as the claim that blabbermouth.net is one of the top online metal resources. In any case, as far as I am aware, the presence or absence of weasel words are not grounds for deletion. I don't see where you got the idea that the Radiofabrik reference is written by someone related to the site. The books listed were not included by me. --Bardin (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of notability. More detail in my comments above. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find coverage about the metal observer. Whether Blabbermouth is a reliable source is not really relevant to as the coverage amounts to no more than a mention. That's not significant coverage, and certainly not enough to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blabbermouth only mentions the site in passing and that's what WP:WEB would call "trivial coverage" such as "a brief summary of the nature of the content". There should be at least one or two sources in which the site is either covered in greater depth or is the main topic. If there's evidence of those references, the article may be kept, but I don't currently see it meeting the criteria in WP:WEB. Spellcast (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 15 January 2009 (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.