Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Metallum (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. Stifle (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Metallum

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Metallum
• Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Metallum (2nd nomination)

Encyclopaedia Metallum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article was previously nominated without resulting in a consensus. Fansite; article is entirely sourced from its subject; I've seen nothing that proves that it or its founders are notable or authoritive in any way. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Same as previous AFD. No significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Gosh, here we go again. Besides being, by far, the most accessed Metal website (Google and Alexa), Examiner.com has one article about MA, which could be found through Google News back when it was written.Evenfiel (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The article on examiner is written by a member of the Encyclopaedia Metallum. Examiner.com also appears to be a site that relies on user generated content. Apparently, I can write for them too ... if I am from the USA. --Bardin (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. Oh, I didn't know he was a member, but so what? He's not even an active user, and I'm sure that anyone who writes about EM would have an account there, just like a lot of journalists and writers who talk about Wikipedia have an account here. About writing for examiner.com, it's not an user generated site like wikipedia. Your application needs to be approved, as it's clearly written here.Evenfiel (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
      • As something written by a member of the site, it is not an independent source as required by wikipedia's guideline on notability for websites. --Bardin (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I would also like to remind you guys of what was posted in the latest discussion about MA:

The result was No consensus. The nominator and subsequent participators here have presented a very strong case for deletion based on our relevant notability guideline for websites. However, some credence needs to be given to the availability of sources for a genre of music that historically does not get any mainstream media coverage, such as metal/death music. The "alexa ranking", or hit count, as cited by Evenfiel below, in this case, does garner some significance as being a high-traffic website for its fanbase. Looking at the concerns of the notability camp, and the ramifications/fallout of deleting this article as far as the List of online music databases, they balance themselves out to a firm "no consensus" to delete. (I'm not a vote counter by any means, but as an FYI, it came out in support of non-consensus closure, at 9D/8K. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Evenfiel (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I am in agreement with Evenfiel's observations above. In the absence of mainstream media's coverage of the metal/death music scene, EM fills an important gap. And I believe more than a few metal-related articles on Wikipedia use EM as a reference. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • As far as that goes, I've seen no evidence that EM is a reliable source. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC))
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 00:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. The argument that EM is the only available source for coverage of this type of music doesn't hold water. There are (rarely-cited) magazines such as Metal Hammer and Terrorizer that cover it, and try searching for "heavy metal", "death metal" or "black metal" over at Amazon - book sources are available for genuinely notable bands - the problem is that unfortunately a lot of editors who work on these articles don't cite proper sources. EM is not a reliable source and should not be used as a reference in articles here. The argument that we should keep it because it's used as a source in some articles isn't a good one at all.--Michig (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN. We've had this discussion at AfD once; what's supposed to have changed in the meantime?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:46, 3 May

  Have you actually read the page you linked to? 'NOTAGAIN' is part of 'arguments to avoid in deletion discussions', because it's not much of an argument. The page states that frivolous nominations can be speedy-kept, but this nomination is not frivolous - the nominator makes a good case for deletion. Robofish (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. The only encyclopedic books on metal in amazon are those by Garry Sharp Young, which are heavily incomplete, outdated and with info lifted straight from Encyclopaedia Metallum. Other than that, the only books available are those that deal with the famous bands of each genre. If you think that all genuinely notable bands have books sources, you should start to nominate for deletion most metal bands in Wikipedia. Even if Wikipedia does not consider EM a source, it's heavily used as such by journalists specialized in metal, but I guess this does not has much to do with the current discussion, which is already a pointless rehash of an old one. Evenfiel (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • What about these books, all not written by Garry Sharpe-Young? [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Sure, these might not give much coverage to some obscure Scandinavian band that only ever released a couple of demos and a run of 100 CD-Rs on an 'underground' label, but that's probably because they don't belong in an encyclopedia. If EM is the only source available for these bands then I think says a lot about their notability.--Michig (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • 1, 2, 3 are not encyclopedic in any way or shape. You will not find any complete discography, for example. 4 was published in 1983. 5 is a book with photos. (Did you even care to read what those books are about?). 6 seems to only have a few bands, omitting obvious notable bands, like Opeth, Nightwish, and Bruce Dickinson's solo band. 7 I admit that I don't know, but that book was released in November 2008. The last one is only about Swedish metal.Evenfiel (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
    • The Rough Guide certainly is encyclopedic (take a look through the first few pages on Amazon), and surely a book that "is only about Swedish metal" is a reasonable source for articles about Swedish metal bands? You can't expect all sources to give you an alphabetic listing of bios and discographies - writing well-sourced articles on bands isn't as easy as that. Bands such as Opeth have been covered in magazines such as Terrorizer, and even Allmusic has a reasonable bio [9], which, unlike EM, could not have been written by band members and fans. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
      • The Rough Guide is indeed quite rough. Look at their entry for Accept. There is hardly any info about the albums, something that EM has. About the other book, maybe (I haven't seen the book) for swedish death metal, but that's just a fraction of the metal bands covered in Wikipedia. Also, I don't think that the significance of EM to Wikipedia is due to the biographies. It's importance relies on the information about current and previous line-ups, as well as complete discographies and info about each album, something that you won't find in those books, and many times not even in the official sites. Evenfiel (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I have no problem with any source being used to find info on discographies, and I have no problem with EM being used as a source of information, but it cannot be the only source that an article relies on. For bands that are notable, other sources will exist.--Michig (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No significant coverage of a site consisting solely of user-edited comment; fails WP:WEB. Alexa ratings are not signifiers to notability, and as Michig quite rightly points out there are plenty of commercially published print resources for the genre of heavy metal. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment.Maybe you didn't read this, so I'll post it again The nominator and subsequent participators here have presented a very strong case for deletion based on our relevant notability guideline for websites. However, some credence needs to be given to the availability of sources for a genre of music that historically does not get any mainstream media coverage, such as metal/death music. The "alexa ranking", or hit count, as cited by Evenfiel below, in this case, does garner some significance as being a high-traffic website for its fanbase.. It also amazes me that someone who created articles for such "notable bands" as Bestial Mockery, Diaboli and Revenge wants to see EM deleted cause it's not notable. Hey Michig, you'll have something to do after this discussion is closed. *hint* --Evenfiel (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment. You mean try to find reliable sources for those articles? Sure, I'll give it a go.--Michig (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment. Not relevant to this AFD. --Bardin (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Even though I was the nominator for the last AFD, I was actually going to sit this one out for reasons that are irrelevant to this AFD. Since this AFD is already degenerating into irrelevant topics, I've decided to throw my two cents into the fray. While I respect Keeper76 as an admin, I believe he or she came to a wrong conclusion at the previous AFD. However, I did not felt strongly enough about the matter to pursue it any further. The only reason why the article was kept is because of the Alexa ranking that Evenfiel kept bringing up but the popularity or lack thereof for a website has no relevance in determining whether a site is notable according to wikipedia's very own guidelines on the subject. Notability is not about reliability, so the entire discussion above between Evenfiel and Michig is completely irrelevant. Notability is not about popularity. There is nothing in wikipedia's policies that state a website is notable because it is popular. There are many, many sites that attract more internet traffic than the metal-archives but they do not have an article on wikipedia because none of them, like the metal archives, fulfil the notability requirements of wikipedia. I was not going to bring this up either but since Evenfiel has decided to disparage the reliability of another editor's opinions above, I would like to draw attention to the fact that Evenfiel is actually one of the biggest contributors to the Metal Archives and shares the same highest rank with only four other individuals, including the two owners of the site. I think there is a blatant conflict of interest when someone promotes as reliable a site that houses their own original contributions while questioning the value of books from such notable publishers as Rough Guides, McFarland & Company and Feral House. --Bardin (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that this discussion has got off-topic, but a large part of the rationale behind not deleting this last time was the suggestion that bands in the genres covered by EM are not covered elsehwere, which is what I have been arguing against. I would like to see someone come forward with a good argument for EM being suitable for an encyclopedia article, rather than just being useful or popular.--Michig (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Being notable for an article on wikipedia is a different issue to being reliable as a source for other articles on wikipedia. This website is neither. --Bardin (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. According to WP:Search_engine_test, hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability.. So, it means that, if you examine well the hits, then it will provide useful information to us. What I'm saying is that, if you compare EM's Google hits or Alexa ranks with any other metal related website, you'll see that EM has far more google hits and is way better ranked in alexa. I'm comparing oranges to oranges here, and it turns out that EM is the most popular site in the metal community, period. As for my relation with EM, I never tried to hid it. I even use the same nick. As for the value of those books, I didn't say they are not reliable. I said they are not complete and cannot be used for checking discographies or line-ups, for example. They might do well what they are pretending to, but they don't have complete info about those bands and that's a fact. Anyway, this discussion should be about notability, not reliability. Evenfiel (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:Search engine test is about the number of hits that a subject gets on a search engine like google or yahoo. It is not about the number of visitors to a site, which is what Alexa measures. Those are two separate issues and nowhere on wikipedia is there a policy or guideline that says a website is notable if it is simply popular. --Bardin (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm talking about Google hits as well.Evenfiel (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hatted extended wrangling

I'll ask again. Considering this nomination in the light of WP:NOTAGAIN, what has actually changed since the last AfD?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Consensus can change. The last AFD took place over a year ago and was initiated by a different nominator, i.e. me. --Bardin (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC) It can indeed, and in this case the nominator seems to have been hoping it will, but without bringing any actual new arguments to the table. If you disagree with the previous closure of this debate, the right place to challenge it is at DRV, not here. We have WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED for a good reason. This nomination should be closed as keep unless some fresh evidence or some new line of argument are advanced.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, the reason being that wikipedia has a provision for editors to write essays. WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED and WP:NOTAGAIN are all part of the same essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. I will certainly bring this AFD to deletion review if anyone dares to close it not because of a wikipedia policy or guideline but an essay that nobody is obligated to follow. --Bardin (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC) ...which boils down to WP:ONLYESSAY.  :) Essays are a convenient shorthand to explain my point of view, and the closer will know exactly how much weight to give them. I hope the closer will agree with me that if there's nothing more to this nomination than a desire to rehash the previous AfD in the hope of getting a different outcome, then DRV is the right place for it. The closer, as an admin, will certainly know about the guideline that underpins my point of view, which is WP:FORUMSHOP. Besides that, there's a WP:COMMONSENSE reason why AfD's are closed and not simply relisted again forever.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC) This has nothing to do with forum shopping. The nominator above has not raised this issue anywhere else. The last AFD was made by a different person (me) over a year ago. Many articles undergo multiple AFD nominations. A gap of over one year is certainly long enough for one to see whether consensus has changed. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can change over a year; our understanding of those policies and guidelines can change over a year; and our opinions of this article can change over a year too. You make it seem as if it is wrong for the nominator to hope that this AFD will lead to a different outcome when that is obviously the entire point of nominating an article for deletion again. Wikipedia permits articles to be nominated for deletion more than once and many articles have been deleted only on their second, third, fourth, fifth or more deletion. The nominator has not done anything wrong in nominating this article for deletion again and the rest of us have not done anything wrong in participating in this discussion. If you disagree, I suggest you go to WP:AN instead of cluttering up this AFD any further with this irrelevant discussion. --Bardin (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC) All I'm doing is pointing out the entire nomination is based on arguments to avoid, Bardin. I'm afraid you won't convince me that it's unreasonable to do so, nor that I should take my comments to drama central AN/I.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Correction, it is your entire argument against this nomination that is based on that essay. --Bardin (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC) (outdent) We aren't going to agree. To summarise the preceding discussion: My position Bardin's position This nomination is entirely based on arguments to avoid ATA is only an essay, and it should be disregarded in this case because consensus can change This discussion should be at DRV because it advances no new arguments and presents no new evidence not already taken into account in the previous close Other articles are deleted from AfD in this way, so why not this one? Such repeated nominations are forumshopping No they aren't, take this irrelevant discussion to AN I'll let the closer decide which of us has the stronger argument. :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC) WTF? You are completely misrepresenting my position in that box of yours. For instance, I never said forum shopping does not matter. I said this is not forum shopping. Kindly remove that box of yours from this AFD. You are really going way beyond the subject of this AFD. --Bardin (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Amended.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC) I did not asked for an amendment. I am asking you to kindly remove the entire box as a misrepresentation of my positions and an inaccurate summary of our discussion. Please let other editors, including the closing admin, to arrive at their own conclusions regarding our viewpoints. --Bardin (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC) I think the tabular format is a good way of analysing the strengths and weaknesses of varying arguments. However, I would not wish to misrepresent you, so please feel free to indicate the specific points you object to.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC) I really wish I have not even seen this AFD in the first place now. I could do without all of this aggravation. I have already told you twice now that the box misrepresents my viewpoints and is an inaccurate summary of our discussion. You chose which points to include in your summary. You chose which points to present next to one another. You chose which points to ignore. I do not want to rehash our discussion again, point by point, repeating myself again. It is late and I have an early flight tomorrow. All I'm asking here is for you to just be nice, drop the box from this AFD as something wholly unnecessary. If you think your summary is accurate, do you not think that any closing admin would be able to come to the same conclusion just by reading our discussion? Please, I'm begging you here. Enough of this, okay? --Bardin (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Forget it. I'll just do my own summary, as if this AFD needs to get further degenerated into irrelevant discussion. S Marshall position Bardin's position This nomination should be closed because of WP:NOTAGAIN We should not close an AFD because of an essay that nobody is obligated to follow. This nomination should be closed because the nominator has not brought up any new arguments from the last AFD. Consensus can change, editors' opinions can change, especially in a period of over one year. Such repeated nominations are forumshopping The first nomination was done by a different person over a year ago so this is not forum shopping. The nominator is doing something wrong by hoping that the outcome of this AFD will be different to the previous one. It is neither wrong nor unusual for an article to be nominated for deletion again, especially when the last nomination was made by a different person over an entire year ago. If any admin wishes to strike off, rollback or otherwise hide this entire exchange between S Marshall and myself, please do so. --Bardin (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to be an admin to hat an extended discussion; I've just done it. We can move the hat to include the entire discussion when we've finished.

I've amended my side of the table as shown below:

S Marshall's position	Bardin's position
This nomination boils down to WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.	The only previous nomination was made over a year ago by a different nominator so it is not a case of repeated listing till it gets deleted. We should not close an AFD because of an essay that nobody is obligated to follow.
This nomination should be at DRV rather than AfD because the nominator has not brought up any new arguments or evidence not considered in the the last AFD.	Consensus can change, editors' opinions can change, especially in a period of over one year.
Repeated nominations are forumshopping	The first nomination was done by a different person over a year ago so this is not forum shopping.
The nominator advances no new arguments and is simply hoping that the outcome of this AFD will be different.	It is neither wrong nor unusual for an article to be nominated for deletion again, especially when the last nomination was made by a different person over an entire year ago.
It doesn't matter whether it was an hour ago, a week ago, a year ago or a century ago. There still are no new arguments here we haven't already considered at the previous closure.	Consensus can change because the opinions of editors on the same subject/policies/guidelines can change, especially in a period of over one year.

—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment. Bardin says that it was another person who nominated by another person, so this is not forum shopping. Just look at the logs and you'll see that he, along with Blackmetalbaz, were the users who were enthusiastically trying to delete the article. Saying that it's not a forum shopping because it wasn't nominated by you is nothing more than a smoke screen.Evenfiel (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
    • What log? I do not see any prod or CSD in the article history. Blackmetalbaz participated in the last AFD which was made over a year ago but that's nothing unusual. There is no forum shopping or smoke screen here and saying otherwise is nothing more than an attempt to paint this nomination in a negative light. --Bardin (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. 'Weak' because it would appear that the site is quite popular (relatively speaking) - the Alexa ranking has to count for something. But ultimately, 'delete' because it doesn't have any references to reliable sources, at all. I'd have thought that, if this truly is a notable, important and influential website, there would be some available references to prove that; as there apparently aren't, it must according to our guidelines be deleted. Robofish (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This is not one? Other than the interviews that are already linked in EM's article, indeed, there are no other articles that deal uniquely with EM, though the site is constantly brought up in interviews with metal bands. If you ask metal journalists where they get their info, it's usually in EM. Even Jeff Wagner, ex-editor of Metal Maniacs (which used to be the biggest metal magazine in North America), told me that he uses EM to look for info on his new book about Progressive Metal. This is the sort of popularity that doesn't translate into articles about EM, but it does exist.Evenfiel (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It is written by a member of the site and hence, it is not an independent source as required by wikipedia's guideline on notability for websites. --Bardin (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
      • This is the third time you say exactly the same thing. He's not an active user and is not involved with the site. He's just one among the 137,000 registered users. It would be ridiculous to not consider him an independent source because of that.Evenfiel (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• comment when the first afd was closed as non-consensus, a second afd is not only permissible, but highly desirable. We want to achieve consensus. S Marshalls interpretation above simply does not make the least sense to me. The only facotr to consider is whether it is reasonable to do it only 4 weeks after the first one. I think it is. This is not a matter of nominating until it gets deleted. Its a question of nominating until there is some consensus on what to do with the article. If I had to give minimum times for this, I would say after a first afd ending in non-consensus, one month is long enough, though I would normally advise 2 months, because it increases the chances of getting a definite result. After a keep, I;d require at least 4 months, and better 6. (and double that for successive keeps My strong position against repeated rapid nominations has been clear since I came here. I consider this nomination perfectly acceptable, even from my view. No judgement on the article, which is not in my subject area of competence. DGG (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to direct DGG's attention here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• comment. Maybe this doesn't mean much, but EM is one of the seven rock-related sites that are listed by the Bibliothèque nationale de France. Just like All Music, it's listed as a reference / database site. Also, EM was interviewed in 2005 by Miasma, a finnish printed magazine, and, since the last discussion, by Arsenic, a printed magazine from Quebec. Evenfiel (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails notability AND verifiability. Without multiple sources independent of the subject to provide verifiability, this article will never be more than a magnet for original research. Those two interviews the above editor mention are from amateur fanzines. One of the interviewer even uses a stupid nickname "satanick" like the two webmasters. There's no commentary on the website at all from either interviewer. It's like a recorded transcript of a casual conversation, the two webmasters making fun of other websites like rockdetector. No useful info and so even the wikipedia article does not cite anything from either interview. If we rtake out all the original research from the article, the only thing left will be one sentence about the Alexa ranking. This is no high school prom, popularity means nothing. --Anarchodin (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • So what if they use nicks? You are using a nick. What difference does it make? As for the interview's content, of course they talk about the site. Maybe you should read them again. Anyway, you didn't say anything about the Examiner.com article.Evenfiel (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not a reliable source. Someone hiding behind a nickname for an amateur fanzine is not a reliable source too. Other editors have addressed that examiner piece. All three are unreliable and/or not independent of the metal archives. --Anarchodin (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Plenty of people who write for metal magazines use nicknames, even in mainstream ones. To use a nickname is a non-issue in this case. As for the examiner piece, your "other editors" means one, Bardin, who did not answer me when I questioned him. Evenfiel (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
        • What's there to respond to, he thinks (and I agree) that the examiner piece is not independent of metal archives. Other editors who voted delete also agree implicitly or else they would have voted keep. You, as the "metal god" of metal archives, disagrees. no surprise. --Anarchodin (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
      • It's pretty weak to say that he's involved with metal archives just because he has an account there. 137,000 people have an account in MA. The guy who wrote it is far from being an active user of the site. All he did, since his account was created two years ago, was to submit two reviews. Also, back then, if you didn't have an account, you were not able to use the regular search. I wouldn't be surprised if his account was created just because he wanted to use the regular search. I didn't know he had an account there, and he never bothered to send his article to us. Btw, except for you and Robofish, all the other editors had already voted to delete EM one year ago. Evenfiel (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete WAY overdue for being removed from Wiki. Its inclusion just invites kids to try and use it as a ref even though ot fails wp:rs. The article should be removed and the link added to the spam blacklist. The Real Libs-speak politely 10:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Not a notable entity at all. I could make something like that in 10 minutes. 140,000~ accounts isn't an indication of notability either, by the way. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 11:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - If you search for pretty much any metal band on google, a EM link will be one of the first results, though I guess that people here will tell me that this doesn't mean anything. Evenfiel (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable website, WP:RS, WP:V. I gave Evenfiel's idea a try. From List of heavy metal bands, I searched in google and saw how many had results on the first page. I got to "cream metal band" before realising that I was wasting my time. I also find it funny that Evenfiel casts off two people as being the sole users wanting delete whilst he appears to me to be the only one fighting for inclusion. Anyhow, I don't want an argument so I'll leave now. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Cream and most of the other bands you've searched aren't in Encyclopaedia Metallum, so obviously you cannot find them. Most bands listed in that "Original Movement" list aren't in EM. The only band you've searched which is in EM is Black Sabbath. Try, for example, the bands from List_of_black_metal_bands or List_of_thrash_metal_bands. Just type their name on google and hit search. S Marshal also had quite a long discussion with Bardin, who was already fighting hard to delete this article one year ago. If you exclude everyone who had already voted in the other discussion, you have 2 keep and 5 delete.Evenfiel (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I went ahead and looked at the black metal bands you gave me. Choosing at random, of the 5 I selected to search 2 came up with EM links, Gramary and Magane. Whilst not trying to make it sound as if I'm trying to support a bias view, I wouldn't exactly call them the most notable musicians around. But you could be right to an extent. EM certainly may be popular for this genre of the music market. Does that make it a notable website? I wouldn't say so. Should it feature as a link on the bottom of, say, Black metal? I wouldn't object. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 18:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
      • It's not only black metal, it's all genres of heavy metal music. The bands you've searched before are not considered metal by EM's standards (They are classified as rock bands). If the band is in the database, it will probably appear as one of the first google results.Evenfiel (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
        • "You're searching for the wrong things, you need to be more specific" merely implies that this website is supporting a more-and-more niche market, further relieving its notability. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
          • Not really. I'm merely pointing that the site is about metal, not rock. If you search for Aerosmith, which is classified by wikipedia as hard rock, you won't get any results, merely because you are searching for the wrong band. Also, it would be remarkable that such a niche-specific site has so many google hits and such a high alexa ranking, specially if compared to other metal websites that have an article in wikipedia. Evenfiel (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Perceived importance to a topic does not equal notability. Hit counts do not make for notability. Unless more independent reliable sources with non trivial coverage can be found to demonstrate notability it must be deleted. Spiesr (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It does get some minor coverage as seen and here if you check the new thread on the site it appears theat the creators were interviewed by Arsenic magizine. if any one can find the issue it could be helpful to the page.75.159.21.123 (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC) — 75.159.21.123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong Keep - Some people seem to want to delete the article just because some other users use it as a source for wikipedia articles. Whether the site should be used as a source or not is a completely different argument, though. Plenty of sites shouldn't be used as sources but that has nothing to do with them having an article on wikipedia or being notable or not. The Metal Archives site is notable just for the huge amount of traffic it gets and obviously the number of people that use it for whatever reasons they use it for. Besides that some argue that MA is some sort of fansite. It is not a fansite. It is a site that is much like wikipedia that is open to users to add articles about bands and review information there. Also it's a site where people come to comment about albums, etc. At the very least it should be considered a notable forum site, whether reliable or not (or a good source or not). Therefore the article dealing with MA on wikipedia should be kept. Especially considering much less notable forums and sites with less traffic still have articles on wikipedia just because they have a high amount of people (traffic) coming to the site. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 04:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Also - As a side note, I don't really see what's changed since the first afd. Nothing new is being brought up, but I realize that may not be the best argument for keeping the article. But I do have one more argument. There are other sources about MA than the site itself. Evenfiel mentioned some of them already, like the interviews. I suggest somebody put those sources in the article. Also, I just have to say that MA has the MOST comprehensive information about well-known to very rare/underground metal bands and albums anywhere on any site (incl. links to other official band/record sites, etc.). Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 04:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment About the Miasma Interview (The original is in this edition), some people dismissed it as useless because it was supposedly written for an amateur zine. Here is what a finnish friend told me: "I'd like to point out that someone mentioned Miasma as being an "amateur fanzine" or something; that's bullcrap, it's one of the top-3 metal mags in Finland, and sold in virtually every shop, kiosk and service station with a newspaper and magazine stand. What's more, they even have occasional sampler CDs and such, and the mag isn't a xeroxed crap paper like some foreigners seem to think." In other words, that interview should be enough to guarantee EM's notability. Evenfiel (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Your hearsay statement of what your friend tells you is as unreliable a source as your precious site. Many fanzines distribute sampler CDs too. --Anarchodin (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  Comment That is possibly the first time I've heard "My mate says it's notable, so it must be" used in an AfD discussion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • How naive I am. Of course that you, seeing that your dream is to delete this article, wouldn't believe that. So how can I prove that a finnish magazine is "notable"? According to their site, Miasma magazine is distributed by Lehtipiste, a professional press distribution (or whatever you call it) company. You can read their translated info here. Now here is the entry for Miasma magazine. So, what now? Should I prove that Lehtipiste is "notable" as well? haha Evenfiel (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
    • If the magazine article was just what you linked to for the interview, then it's really just the site owners talking about the site themselves. If the magazine article went beyond this and featured some journalistic coverage of the site in addition the the interview, as many magazine interviews do, it would probably be a reasonable example of significant coverage. The magazine appears to be professional so I see no reason to exclude it on those grounds. --Michig (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I see no rule saying that "In additional to an interview, the magazine should also have some journalistic coverage of the site". The interview itself should be enough. I also have no idea if that was the only thing they published. I guess that the interview probably had some sort of introduction. Evenfiel (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
        • WP:MUSIC excludes "Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising" from coverage that is considered adequate for demonstrating notability. I know we're not talking about musicians here, but the principle holds, and since the interview above is really just the site owners talking about the site in response to some pre-defined questions, it may not be considered significant independent coverage. If there was more than this in the article, however, it may do.--Michig (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
          • WP:MUSIC does not apply here and you do not need to quote it because WP:WEB applies and it also has the same requirement, albeit worded differently. In one of its footnotes, it states that "Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." Unsurprisingly, I agree with the other editors above who feel that the nature of these interviews do not fulfil the requirement of "people independent of the subject" writing and publishing non-trivial works that focus upon it. The only people in those interviews that discussed the website was the two owners of the website. The interviewers only asked questions. That's trivial. --Bardin (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• "Self-promotion and product placement", haha, (Unsurprisingly) I know you're really desperate to invalidate the Miasma interview, but this is getting ridiculous. They do not talk about their personal life there, and the interview was not some sort of PR stunt (if it is, then prove it). They talk about the site, just like a musician would talk about the composition and recording processes, line-up problems and so on. Evenfiel (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep "It is one of the top 500 most-visited websites in five countries.[4]" They have a reference backing this up, on the alexa site. The number of active users, and amount of content, makes it notable. Dream Focus 17:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  That's been on WP:ATA since its creation. Many tens of thousands of websites will cycle in and out of the top 500 on Alexa, and having such-and-such Alexa rating doesn't facilitate writing a properly sourced article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

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.