- Tetrafusion (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
User:MuZemike directed me here, so I will use my same reason I used at the Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion page. Article was covering a very notable underground band who just released an album on Nightmare Records, who are distributed by RED Distribution, which is a branch of Sony Music Entertainment -- is this not a notable indie label situation, according to No evidence from WP:RS that band meets WP:MUSIC. No recordings on major labels or notable indie labels.? This band's album also charted at #13 on Amazon's Bestsellers Chart under the 'Hard Rock & Metal' category, which I figured was a form of a national chart (which you can view at Altered State (Tetrafusion album) under the References section). Both of these band's albums have received non-trivial reviews on just about any music review website (which you can view on the recently deleted pages at Absolute Zero (Tetrafusion album) and Altered State (Tetrafusion album). This article was NEVER updated with anything resembling WP:COI and was only updated with notable, objective, and neutral information. There are plenty of bands who have Wikipedia pages that are even less resourceful than this one that never got deleted, such as Scale the Summit, who are also distributed by RED Distribution just as Tetrafusion are. Animals as Leaders only has two references as my article did, both even from the same resources (Blabbermouth.net and a local newspaper publication in their respective hometown). Periphery (band) lists a ton of very non-neutral information that has absolutely no references or sources to back it up, going on about who left the band and what guitar pedals they use...how is this viable information compared to what my article contained? Why are pages like these still existing when this one was deleted, although EVERY sentence on Tetrafusion's page had a source to quote it from? The band isn't quite large enough to have a lot of options for sources, but has enough to establish a solid level of notability in my opinion for a small, basic article with minimum information. The sources they do have are perfectly valid, while few. Every single statement on the article was quoted by another source, leaving practically nothing in the article that I posted from my own knowledge. I only referenced other articles in my claim because that is what I used to construct this one; they proved to be active, working articles, so I molded them similarly to have a starting point...I used the article wizard as well. Please restore the article and do NOT delete it, it has been attended to with totally objective information and care. This article also went unedited and undeleted for a year, so I don't understand why anything has changd 18 months later? Thanks. Msm041 (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin – I'll basically repeat what I said here: The lone rationale for retention seemed to be directly refuted there, and moreover a rough consensus for deletion was indeed formed. This seems like a continuation of the deletion discussion than the close. I also note that User:AllMusicReview is in fact the same person as User:Msm041; obviously the account switch occurred after the AFD, so that had no effect on my close, but it needs to be pointed out as far as this DRV is concerned. –MuZemike 03:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response – Could you possible be a little more specific with why it was deleted? That's a pretty vague and wordy response and doesn't really support your reasoning. I'm basically trying to figure out how an article with valid sources used to support every sentence isn't considered reliable, and how other pages that do not meet these guidelines co-exist. I understand that other articles have nothing to do with this article in question, but it's without a doubt most articles are molded after others of similar content. I originally used User:AllMusicReview as my main account, but was sent a message saying that my account cannot be representing a collective group (which was not my intention, just a user name I picked), so I re-made an account to abide by those policies; no malicious intentions, period. Msm041 (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In closing a deletion discussion, the admin is supposed to make a determination as to whether a rough consensus supporting deletion has occurred, which I felt occurred. Multiple editors have disputed your claim of the reliability and amount of coverage of the sources provided. –MuZemike 03:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response – I can't disagree there, but I think permanently locking the page forever is completely unnecessary. Bands continue to gain more and more viability, sources, and credentials over time, so eventually soon this page should be able to serve it's intended purpose with no oppositions. This also doesn't answer my question as to why other articles with less coverage are still existing. It's either a result of poor administration or bias, apparently. Fair justification and supportive reasoning is all I'm asking. I'm also unsure why our article was suddenly requested for deletion after sitting still for 18 months with no problems. I only tried to re-create it because I had added more sources each time in hoping it would stay. What can we do about unblocking it, or possibly submitting it to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator page? Msm041 (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment DRV is not AFD round 2, as the instructions say it's about if the process was followed correctly, not just because you disagree with the outcome. Regarding some of your poitns though. WP:WAX the existance of other articles you believe are similar isn't the yardstick by which articles are measured, by similar logic within that the length of time the article has been on wikipedia is also irrelevant, just because no one decided to nominate it for deletion doesn't mean anything. Someone in the AFD said about it being difficult to have reliable sources for this band because of various reasons, you say similar above, if that's the case then it's a pretty good indication they aren't read for a wikipedia article yet. The article seems to have been salted by another admin due to it being recreated, it can of course by undone later if things change. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I endorse the deletion but recommend unsalting to allow the creation of a redirect, or optionally, a protected redirect. I think that we have here is a case where the closer correctly divined the consensus, but the consensus was wrong.
The AfD participants correctly decided that the sourcing for this article was not sufficient to prove that it's independently notable. In other words, the standard required by WP:N was not met and this band should not have its own article. So far, so good. The AfD participants then wrongly decided that a failure to meet WP:N meant that the article should be a redlink. What they should have done is to decide that there were sufficient sources to prove that this band exists, in other words that WP:V was met. They should have been mindful of both WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. They should have examined and exhausted the alternatives to deletion. Alternatives to deletion are always preferred. The AfD participants failed to consider that and it must fall to DRV to correct their mistake. A perfectly reasonable alternative to deletion exists: this title should be a redirect to some variant of the list of heavy metal bands where Tetrafusion could be mentioned (WP:V and preserving the sources) without giving it its own article (so WP:N is complied with). I also take issue with the somewhat ignorant dissing of non-English-language sources that took place in the AfD. Reliable sources don't have to be in English, and if the debate participants don't speak French or Italian or Swahili or whatever it is, then there are uninvolved Wikipedians who do, and the correct recourse is to ask an uninvolved person who speaks the language for help.—S Marshall T/C 12:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I appreciate the defense, as it's what I've been getting at. I never understood why things are just instantly deleted rather than worked on to be improved. Administering isn't just deleting things, but it appears to be so. Some help, whether involved with the creator or not, could have been sought to possibly adjust the article to meet WP:N, versus just deleting it every single time. Unsalting this article would be great, what can we do? Even unlocking it and let someone entirely different create it and I'll just leave it alone? The re-direct option sounds fine, and at what point should I attempt to re-make the article? Like I said, I honestly thought I had enough notable sources before, and this band will only continue to keep getting more of the same type of sources, so I'm not sure when to act. WP:WAX is a pretty silly thing to call this out on, as that's not quite the type of logic I was using to even create the article. Other articles were used to get an idea of a starting point...I didn't create it BECAUSE they existed. The fact that this article was being deleted while other IDENTICAL articles (that only differed in, practically, the name of the band) that had similar credentials did not make sense, so that's all I was wondering. I realize this isn't ADF round 2, but the instructions were to "re-administer my reason" because at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion my reason was ignored, so this was my first time to ever offer one. Apologies there. Msm041 (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You say, "The fact that this article was being deleted while other IDENTICAL articles (that only differed in, practically, the name of the band) that had similar credentials did not make sense..." and that's a common experience among people who're confronted with Wikipedia's processes. You (quite reasonably) expect Wikipedia to be consistent, and our processes are moderately consistent, but we don't try to deal with every single article all at the same time--that would be impossible. We have to deal with them one by one, in the order that people raise them.
In other words, if another article that only differed in the name of the band was brought through the AfD and DRV process, it would likely be treated in the same way, but not all articles have been through that yet, and there may well be quite a few older ones that have yet to be brought to our attention. Making sure all our older articles comply with our current rules is a herculean task, particularly when we have processes designed to ensure that everyone has their say about what should be done! What that means is that while we are reasonably consistent, there's such a huge backlog that in terms of content decisions, we can often appear to be totally inconsistent. I'm sorry about that and I assure you that we have no wish to be unfair to anyone.—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Addition) I should have explained that "unsalting" in this case would be for the purpose of creating a redirect page, not for letting someone else create a fresh article. I have suggested that Tetrafusion receives some coverage on Wikipedia but not its own article. For example, in one of the Star Wars films there's a minor character called E-3PO. If you search for E-3PO on our site, then you won't find a separate article, but will find something a bit more helpful than a redlink. I propose a similar solution here.—S Marshall T/C 12:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense, and I understand pure consistency is unreal to ask for, but didn't know if it was simply that or another over-looming issue. A redirect wound be fine, but who is responsible for setting that up? I feel like I'm walking on eggshells here already so I'm hesitant to try to create anything as I feel I'll have to endure this entire, redundant process a second time. Also, when will the article be available to be re-created entirely? If this band becomes huge or something, it would make no sense to keep them at a small redirect level, and at some point they should have a full page with full coverage. The point at which this can happen is still quite hazy to me because Wikipedia's standards with notability seem pretty vague to begin with, so please let me know. I'm personally unable to tell the difference between a notable article and a non-notable article. Specifics on how to go about any of this would be appreciated if possible. Msm041 (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You asked who would set up the redirect, and if such is the consensus, it will be the administrator who closes this debate in a few more days. You also asked when will the article be available to re-create entirely, and the answer is, when the band reaches one of the standards mentioned in WP:BAND. You said "Wikipedia's standards with notability seem pretty vague", and although they may seem so, I assure you that they are as objective as they can be under the circumstances. The point of the "notability" criterion is twofold:
(1) To try to see that subjects receive coverage in proportion to their importance. Wikipedia isn't very good at this. We have no separate article about Agriculture in France, but we have over 4,800 words about Sexuality in Star Trek. There are over 200 articles that contain a summary of the plot of Star Wars, but our article on Pope Benedict VI is a few words copy/pasted from an out-of-copyright Catholic encyclopaedia. But notability is our attempt to improve. 2) Wikipedia is content that anyone can write, for free, that has high visibility on google. That means that it's very attractive to marketers. Notability is our attempt to make some kind of objective distinction between articles that belong in an encyclopaedia and articles created by those who'd like to advertise something. So what we require is that to have an article, something should have received non-trivial coverage (i.e. more than just a passing mention) in more than one reliable source. The point of this is to ensure that subjects get articles if they've already attracted significant attention. Editors aren't allowed to create articles in the hope that attention will be attracted.—S Marshall T/C 18:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I created this article because everywhere I looked I saw this band's name, whether in some review or article. I'm just unsure of how the sources I used aren't reliable. I've read WP:BAND over and over and the sources I had seem to fit that criteria. Correct me if I'm wrong, but an album review on a very notable website isn't the band talking about themselves, a press release, or an advertisement. They aren't school papers, or postings about track listings, concert dates, etc. It was a totally unbiased review on the work. I don't mean to keep egging this on, but the thing is, as far as sources, this is all bands really have...reviews and articles about their music (as far as #1 on the WP:BAND list). I can attest to the following criteria (Grammys, TV, album charting, etc.), but just wasn't sure how the sources I used were invalid. To my understanding it fits criterion 1, they have been the subject of numerous online published works [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] appeared in several magazines, Progression Magazine (Issue #57 / June 2009)[18], Rock Hard Magazine (Issue #267 / August 2009) [19], and Decibel Magazine (Issue #59 / September 2009)[20]. Are these the wrong types of sources to be using? To close this out, I appreciate the redirect concession, and when this band fits criterion #2-#10, we'll discuss the full page then. Let me know about the sources though I just mentioned... Msm041 (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. although a BLP, the question is about notability , not improper material. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Great, I hope this is a step in the direction to help improve the article and hopefully restore it. I do understand that it isn't regarding proper material, and it's about notability, but that's what I was originally asking: I was unsure of how all of those sources I linked were non-notable. As the message says, I'm doing my best to appeal its deletion and have thoroughly provided everything I can to restore it in some fashion. Not sure where to go with it from here, but just wanted to have my point across. I hope we can come to a resolving compromise. Msm041 (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
