Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aseptic Void

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. slakr^\ talk / 09:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aseptic Void[edit]

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

Author removed PROD, my original concern was "All sources given, while at first glance appear to be notable, are actually blog links." While I'm hesitant to nominate this for deletion given the links in the article, except for the two The New Noise links (reliablity unknown) and the Ondarock and Necroweb links (which look promising, although I don't know if either is considered a reliable source, but they are occasionally used as sources), the other sources are self-published blogs. If someone finds anything else reliable, ping me and I'll withdraw this AfD. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PAY ATTENTION: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max000damage (talk • contribs) 23:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Aseptic Void is a famous international artist. I have removed the ”””wrong links””” (blogs that aren't self-published, anyway). The Cryo Chamber Label of Atrium Carceri (boss label of Aseptic Void and one of the most prolific and famous Dark Ambient artists in the world) and the slender's woods links are very notable sources. There are a lot of reviews, appearence and citations on the web. For how long this thing will be called into question? just try searching with google.[reply]

- MARK ( Max000damage )

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was previously declined at AfC [1] but was then posted to main article space. AllyD (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not finding reliable sources independent of the subject; fails WP:NMUSIC at this point. AllyD (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Below I am reinstating comments that had been added while removing the above contributions to the AfD (AllyD (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)):[reply]

Aseptic Void is a famous international artist. I have removed the ”””wrong links””” (blogs that aren't self-published, anyway). The Cryo Chamber Label of Atrium Carceri (boss label of Aseptic Void and one of the most prolific and famous Dark Ambient artists in the world) and the slender's woods links are very notable sources. There are a lot of reviews, appearence and citations on the web. For how long this thing will be called into question? just try searching with google. - MARK ( Max000damage )

Strong delete. Nothing in the article indicates that the subject meets WP:NMUSIC, and there are not enough reliable, independent sources to meet WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in this case, the inability to find reliable sources is strongly influenced by lack of knowledge of some people towards music, because is very simple to find reviews, appearences and indipendent citations of the artist in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max000damage (talk • contribs) 00:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it were simple, I'd have expected to find something on Google. However, a Google news search turns up no hits whatsoever; a Google web search turns up no independent, reliable sources on the first page of results. —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Ok, find something on google: https://www.google.it/search?q=aseptic+void&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:it:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb&gfe_rd=ctrl&ei=GHQaU8z8JYve8gfEgoHwBg&gws_rd=cr can you read? I see a lot of independent and reliable sources about Aseptic Void, in every pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max000damage (talk • contribs) 01:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC) — Max000damage (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Facebook is a primary source. Soundcloud and Bandcamp are treated as primary because the page is set up by the band. Tumblr is primary. Discogs is unreliable (user-editable). The pattern pretty much holds. No professional reviews, no write-ups in Billboard or the like, etc. —C.Fred (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at the history of the AfC submission, it was originally contributed by User:AsepticVoid. When it was declined, noting COI, the subsequent edits on the same day were by new user User:Max000damage. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a fan of Aseptic Void and an ambient music listener. All the reviews (Ondarock, Necroweb, Headcleaner, The New Noise, the interview on cryochamberlabel.com and the others) are written by PROFESSIONAL reviewers. so, there are professional reviews. Billboard is mainly pop music! It makes absolutely no sense to speak of Billboard in this case! You're not a musician, not an ambient music listener, how can you be reliable? you can't address a topic that you don't know well. You demonstrates lack of knowledge. I'm really sorry that there is this kind of behavior on Wikipedia.

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.