Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Shrinker (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. (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Shrinker (band)[edit]

Article's unreferenced tag was removed, but an almost complete lack of references indicate non-notability, which is borne out also by the lack of references available for this band (discounting blogs etc.). Their records (a split EP and an album) were released on non-notable labels. Drmies (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I ask the proposer, Drmies, to reconsider this deletion proposal. There isn't a clear consensus to delete as of yet. In the meantime, if you'll allow the article to stand, some of us could take the time to better source the article. It would be a shame to get rid of this act as they were notable on the scene and within the genre. As others have mentioned, there are sources out there - they just need to be found. Best, A Sniper (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable band WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - obviously, the proposer knows nothing about the underground US Death metal genre as this band is certainly notable. The most reputable reference sites of the genre note the band, and the band's popularity in the tape trading world that spawned the genre is without question. Of course the page needs work, but this coupled with the proposer's ignorance of the genre is not a reason to delete the article. A Sniper (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read WP:CIVIL. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry - the wording of the deletion proposal got me a little flustered. Apologies to the proposer & all... A Sniper (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1, album review, album review and an in-depth interview. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Esradekan, that part of the policy says "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries." These three references you've kindly provided (and you had to wade through a lot to get them) don't exactly fit in there. I really don't want to restart that discussion of whether Metal Archives is notable, reviewed, etc.; I'm perfectly willing to accept some notability to be derived from inclusion on MA, but there simply isn't a whole lot about Dr. Shrinker on MA (no reviews of the albums, for instance, and that's important). You see, A Sniper, I'm not a complete idiot here. Now, if there were anything else, or if there are a lot of print resources out there not available online, that's great--but those who state that case should back up that argument by adding those sources to the article. The article was tagged "unreferenced" in May of last year, and an IP thought that one addition was good enough to remove that tag (incorrecly, IMO). So there's been plenty of time, and there is no requirement that sources be online. There is a requirement that there be sources, this being an encyclopedia. Now, if Necroharmonic is notable, that's a start, though that still doesn't bring them up to WP:MUSIC#C6, which requires two albums on a notable or important label. Baz, if you find those sources, I'll be happy to withdraw this, but Esradekan, what you dug up is not enough for me, though I thank you for the good work. A Sniper, no hard feelings, but please don't think that someone is ignorant for proposing deletion of a band you like; feel free to look throught the List of death metal bands and you'll see we're on the same team. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now The band is certainly name-dropped a fair bit and their demos are "legendary". However, they never released an album (only a demos compilation), never toured and have significant coverage in third party reliable sources (Metal Archives and Metal Rules do not count). It is possible that there are further sources out there, and I'll endeavour to find some but at present the article fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should add though that, whilst a page has yet to written, an argument could be made that Necroharmonic is in fact a notable label. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would think that the notability of the label drags the subject band of the article into notable territory, split album notwithstanding. Thoughts? A Sniper (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, WP:MUSIC requires at least two albums on a notable label, so at present that criterion alone isn't fulfilled. I do feel that there must be sources out there, as this is such a well-known band, but it may all be pre-Internet. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an unfortunate result of timing, the lack of easily findable coverage. Pre internet sources are out there. I have read stuff on many for bands I listen to, love and adore that are notable but I can't prove. These sources just need to be refound, my remembering reading something doesnt help till I find where it was I read it. The flaw of an internet based encyclopedia where the main sources are not on the internet. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands it doesn't quite make it. It appears they may be notable but sources need to be provided to verify that. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:MUSIC by not having any reliable sources. http://books.google.com/ and http://www.rocksbackpages.com/ are both good for trying to find pre-internet sources, but both failed in this instance. --JD554 (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry but you're certainly not going to read anything about a pioneering death metal band at Google Books or Rocks Back Pages. Jeesh. A Sniper (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I think you'd be surprised[1][2][3]. However, they are only passing mentions and not enough to prove notability per the guidelines at WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. Jeesh. --JD554 (talk) 07:51, 4 February 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.