Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Factors Lab

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human Factors Lab[edit]

Human Factors Lab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable/non-reputable sources and coverage BringThemDown (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)— BringThemDown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This bands website has fallen under vandalism attacks by previous members of the band. This deletion request is a part of these attacks and should be treated as an attempt to vandalize the bands wikipedia article, as well as wikipedia itself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.152.6 (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been years since I worked on this article, I've no particular opinion on it. I did tend to think it was notable at the time I worked upon it, but whether it's truly notable, I'm not so sure. I'd be inclined to go with deletion for it if I was pushed, but it could easily go either way, I suspect. Nick (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • if anyone checks the history i think its obvious this is vandalism. Comments like " small weiner" and other childish things being added to it make this clear. I cant imagine the Human Factors Lab wiki page not being notable, perhaps there is information missing that could help? im not sure.. it seems fairly complete. perhaps there is a way to help the page, instead of lettering Wikipeda fall victim to vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This band is in no way valid by the terms set by Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 01:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How could anyone say this band should be deleted? That makes no sense at all. What requirements are they not meeting? This is obviously just an attack. Is wiki just deleting bands now? I saw deadstar assembly got deleted. Another awesome band. Wiki must be circling the drain if they keep this up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.133.62.18 (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Total 3rd party here. I don't think it should be taken down. They have national noteriaty. They have played w big name big lable bands. I say keep it! Loogie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.234.186 (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You vandalized articles in two of your three edits [1] [2]. What brings you here? Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another 3rd party here it is not the band responsible for the page vandalism it is it's past members who think that since they are not in the band anymore they feel like they should cause controversy within the band.. and as someone metioned the removal of DSA one question. Why? Both great bands with great followings.. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.51.16.4 (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • IN regards to the Notability as set forth by wikipedia,
1.Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.,The band has had articles and interview in many national and regional publications including looker magazine, rag magazine, City Link,new times, ect.[4]
4.Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.-They have toured the U.S. 7 times, their 2 most recent tours with Mushroomhead received extensive amounts of press, a quick google search can show some for the pages such as MTV[5], and Blabbermouth[6] that covered the tours.
5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).Toxic Shock records[7] is a notable indie label. HFLs label mates include psychotica, and Team Cybergiest featuring Angel from Dope
6.Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.-The band is led only by one person and features rotating live members Seven has also worked closely with other bands such as Crossbreed, and 16VOLT. They also release a remix album with remixes by Crossbreed, 16VOLT,KMFDM, BILE, Team cybergiest, as well as many other national " notable" bands.
11.Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.-Human Factors Lab has regular radio play national, as well as varies podcasts such as razorblade dance floor,
I think it is safe to that that although Human Factors Lab does not meet ALL 12 of the criteria, (to be notable they only have to meet one,)they do in fact meet 5 right off the bat). Statements made by Elblots and Smerdis of Tlön are indeed false by saying the band does not meet the notability guidlines, Perhaps more research before makeing such statements would have helped —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 18:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the MTV and Blabbermouth articles is Mushroomhead, not Human Factors Lab. Human Factors Lab is named but not discussed; this is only incidental coverage. Toxic Shock Records may be a notable label, but there's no evidence that it is. The question of its WP:notability is moot because it has no WP article. However, the only other of its bands to have a WP article doesn't seem notable, either. The Rag interview does help establish notability, even though members are as noncommittal as an NSA spokesman when talking about the band. As to the rest, you must produce reliable sources that support what you say. Certainly no one else is going to Google "seven" hoping to confirm what you've said. I think too it's fair to ask, is User:HFLSev3n this "seven" of Human Factors Lab? Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Subject of the MTV and Blabbermouth articles are in response to the #4 of the 12 guidelines set forth by wikipedia.the band " Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country"
Mushroomhead was in the fact the headliner of these tours, Human Factors Lab(toxic Shock Records) and Autumn Offering(Victory records) were also apart of the same tour.In addition to Toxic Shock, Human Factors Lab also works with Viabrent Management[8] yes HFLSEV3N is seven from Human Factors Lab, and has been signed on every post made. I think i have just as much right to defend my position in this debate as any one else, And i am trying to do so in a way that is not only fair to Human Factors Lab, but fair to Wiki as well. i DONT use wiki veyr much, until recently i have not been involved in the cration of upkeep of the bands wiki site so perhaps there is information that could be added to help end this debate. as you can see i am not the only one voting for Keeping the page, and also not the only one wanting to delete it. I do feel that the decision should be a fair one. The nomination itself seems like it is not fair, since it was done as an act of vandalism in an attempt to " bringthemdown" them refering to Human Factors Lab" I dont feel that this debate was started with the best interest of Wiki in mind, but instead with malicious intentions. please understand my involvement in this debate is simple to point that out, as well as make sure it remains a fair debate. I truly believe that Human Factors Lab meets the notalibity guidlines for wiki, maybe they are not as well represented as they could be. I am trying to show that the evidence is there that they do meet them. even if its only meeting one of the 12, or 5 of the 12. I guess that is for us all to figure out —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial coverage is i.e. "they're touring with Mushroomhead" or "they're playing tonight at Goths-R-Us", even if it's in Rolling Stone. This band was not discussed at all in the MTV or Blabbermouth articles, but only mentioned incidentally as a detail of Mushroomhead's tour. That's trivial coverage, and you won't get much traction trying to argue otherwise. If the author had nothing substantive to say about the band itself, its music, or its members, then the coverage is trivial.
Whether the nomination was "fair" is irrelevant. All that matters is, are there reliable sources that demonstrate that this band is notable as WP defines that term. Nor does it matter how many say 'yea' and how many 'nay'. This is not a vote. An unseen wiki-immortal will decide the matter wiki-wisely based on the substance of our arguments. Unsubstantiated rhetoric isn't helpful; without reliable sources to back it up, it's just so much hot air. Given that, you're well-advised to focus your effort on producing some of those "hundreds of printed reviews and articles" instead of arguing with your friends. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i understand what you;re saying, I wasnt clear on exacly what was mean by " trivial". Thank you for clearing that up. I guess i don't fully agree with the defenition, i understand that the guideline these 12 guidelines in place to determine wheather a band is Notable. The facts are that Human Factors Lab has toured the U.S. 7 times, performed with varies other national acts. our music is nationally distributed and avilable on iTunes/Amazon ect. these are things that your average "local band" has not and cannot do. The fact that the MTV and blabbermouth as well as a bout 50 other articles in the google search have us listed as part of the mushroomhead tour should be cause to not delte the page on its own in my opinion. we have performed in every state but 3, multi times,to crowds ranging between 500 and 8,000 people. We are on national radio, have national distro, and have received press as well. again things your average " local band" has not done. Im not here to say " oh we are so kool" just because its my band. I am simply saying it seems strange that the page would be deleted. I think the fact that the page was nominated as a result of vandalism should be taken into consideration as well. because its not like anyone in this debate thought to delete HFL because it didnt meet the guidelines. it was a purley a malicious attack. As far as arguing with " friends" that is not my intention.. i dont even know anyone else involved in this debate, it seems half of them are posting just using their IP address anyways. I am trying to simply state a case for not delting the page, based off of the facts involved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.152.6 (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you are in the band itself, you are of course going to see yourself as valid. That aside, without a single valid citation, you have actually fulfilled 0 of the 12 guidelines. 65.2.198.190 (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The terms set forth by wikipedia clearly state that a band must provide NOTABLE REFERENCES. Not word of mouth, not local papers that no ones heard of, no internet radio play. The band claims to have national radio airplay, but no evidence of such was presented and a search provides no support on this. The "label" has only 9 bands "signed" to it, all of which as small or smaller than the band in question and thus not notable, which in no way qualifies them as a big independent outfit. The only mention of the band member working with any notable acts are in the form of remixes (which incidentally does not quality the members as being a part of the musical outfit), most of which are not mentioned by the bands the remix were for. Mention on blabbermouth is valid, however it is a web-blog and thus not a notable reference. The article has no citations, no valid links to support anything, and as such meets none of the wikipedia guidelines that are clearly pointed out on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to add that there is no notable print reviews (local outfits and blogs are far from a reputable source) on this group. The only mention a google search brings up for them are on sites/blogs/social sites that are run by the band themselves. It would appear that the group is using wikipedia as a self promotion tool (which is against the terms of the site), as well as a way to seem credible to outfits that see that they aren't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.42.91 (talk) 19:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The articles that the band appears in are a mixture of Regional( or as stated "local") articles as well as national. The Looker Magazine article linked earlier is in fact a globally distributed release. The band has had a lot of regional press, but has done so on a national level. there have been printed articles and interview in college magazine or local music magazines, but these have been done on a national level. not just to the local area in which the band resides. in regards to the label, yes it is small in the sense of only haviing 9 bands. But the 2 bands listed above, Psychotica, and Team Cybergiest on their own are very notable. Psychotica was a part of the lalapolooza tours ,as well as a few tour with Tool, and have a number of national and global released and distributed albums . So your claim about the labels and the bands is simply an assumption you made having little or no knowledge of the subject, and not researching the topic before making the statement.. its completly false.
bands members working with notable acts, as stated Seven has worked with both 16VOLT, and CROSSBREED. these bands ALSO did remixes but his work with theses bands was independant of Human Factors Lab
The mentions on blabbermouth and MTV were simply examples. if internet sources are not valid there are just as many if not more print sources available,what citations ad valid links are needed? perhaps they could be added. You say no notable print reviews, as stated the band has had hundreds of printed reviews and articles, what to you is " notable" ? the looker magazine article didnt seem to be notable enough for you, and that has global distro. . The band is NOT using Wiki for self promotion, the band was not involved in the creation of the wiki site ,ad has had very little to do with it at all until the past 6 months, these edit over the past 6 months were only to update and have more acurate information, as well as to undo the many vandalism attacks that have taken place by EX members —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, please sign your edits with four tildes (~~~~), HFLSev3n, so that it's clear who is saying what. If the "Fetish Chic Cheat Sheet" is the Looker magazine content that you're speaking of, then I don't understand how it's relevant to this band. Perhaps you can explain. If there are "hundreds of printed reviews and articles," then cite a few. In any case, please stop fighting with your mates and address yourself to the issues instead. Yappy2bhere (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point still stands that the label is by far not major, nor notable in any way. Working on a remix for a band does NOT make them a member of the groups, and thus the original statement stands.
There are no links to support any of the claims being made. One un-cited publication does not make you valid by any means. College and local papers are also not notable.
This debate is being held by the band singer himself as is observed by the username, which is a conflict of interest, and has been the main updater of it for a while now, so the statement about how he has had little involvement is also false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that the label is not notable. What I said was, the notability of the label is undecided because there has never been reason to consider the question. Please don't misrepresent what I've said. The identity of HFLSev3n is only relevant to evaluating what s/he said about Sev3n's role in this band and his/her relationship to other notable bands, and then just barely relevant because what s/he said must still be supported with reliable sources to carry weight in this discussion. But then, so do yours. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have been a major part of this debate, but im not sure how that is a conflict of interest, please explain? Are you saying to do not have a place in this debate? i feel that i have offered fair and factual evidence and examples of why the page should not be deleted.
I stated before that i did not crate the wiki page, and up until the last 6 months, i have not been involved in the editing, this fact can be seen by viewing the dit history. Most of my edits have been a combination of undoing vandalism, as well as updating the page to current and correct information. As far as my involvement with 16VOLT and CROSSBREED i stated that i worked with both bands OUTSIDE of Human Factors Lab in addition to their remix work they did for HFL. I was part of the 16VOLT Denial HWY tour 2008 filling a number of roles, including live guitars, live keyboards, [[9]] Also worked in the studio with crossbreed on their New Slave Nation EP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Touring as a fill in member of a band isn't exactly notable. As for the involvement in/with other groups, even if those were in fact valid, there is no proof/citations on the matter. 65.2.198.190 (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Nature of 16volt, as well as many bands in the industrial rock or Industrial metal genres is that they are often led by one main person, and in a touring situation there are varies live touring members. examples of this would be NIN, KMFDM, Ministry, ect. Eric Powel is the driving force behind 16volt and the people he chose to fill the live positions were chosen because each of them held a degree of notability among the fans of Industrial Music. Steve white(KMFDM), MIke Peoples(daniel Ash band) , Jason baznet(CHEMLAB) and Seven(Human Factors Lab) Im not sure why you would say " even if those were in fact valid" i included a link to the 16volt site. but you can also check ANY press release made in regards to the 16VOLT denial HWY tour and you will find the same information i am providing you with here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you'll have to be more specific than that (please see WP:ATA). Exactly which criterion do they meet and how? TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, I personally think this is asinine - It's an article of information about a band that IS NOTABLE - It's notable by the fact that an argument is even occurring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.93.33 (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also - As KMFDM is inarguably a "notable" artist, Wiki's own page for KMFDM's discography references the band... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KMFDM_discography - This "bringthemdown" stuff is obvious for what it is. No, I am not a member of this band, and a quick internet search provided the KMFDM discography page - I believe that alone is enough to satisfy wiki's notability guidelines. Whoever is putting so much effort into removing this band's page would probably be better served focusing their efforts elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.93.33 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who here even implied that KMFDM isn't notable?! And what could that possibly have to do with whether or not Human Factors Lab is notable? They got paid to do a remix; that doesn't make the other band notable, it just shows they (or their label) have the money to pay KMFDM to do a remix. TheJazzDalek (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
by implying that Human Factors Lab is not notable you are also implying that KMFDM, as well as just about every band on wiki is not " notable" you are also implying that KMFDM will do a remix for any band out there with money,making them musical whores.. this is also VERY far from the truth. the reason KMFDM did the remix for Human Factors Lab is because they share a lot of the same fans. Also note that Human Factors Lab and KMFDM also work with Viabrent Management, Also Steve white from KMFDM plays guitar for 16VOLT, Sev3n from Human Factors Lab also worked with 16VOLT.. This shows that they are in the same musical circles, playing a lot of the same venues, sharing a lot of the same fans. KMFDM is OBVIOUSLY a MUCH bigger band, but this doesnt mean that Human Factors Lab is NOT Notable.. This entire descussion was started as a personal ATTACK against the band and holds no merrit at all. actions like this WILL AND ARE destroying wikipedia. No one will donate to this site, or even want to come to this site.. the site itself will start be known as a joke and not a reliable source of information if vandalism like this is so easliy accepted and allowed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.152.6 (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I modeled their merch, & they let me keep it. So not only do they have good music, but they give out free stuff. Might as well keep 'em around :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.177.66.51 (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • HFL is an ever growing band and has many fans. This page should not be deleted because it has a large fan base and people rely on HFL wiki to get the information they need about this awesome band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.157.36 (talk) 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The Human Factors Lab wiki should'nt be deleted.They are an awesome band and this is just an attack from a previous band member(s) that has a major chip on the shoulder and needs to get over it cause 1. Its not worth it. 2. Its childish. and 3. These things happen.I know,I'm a vocalist for my own band and I've been cut from other bands as well.Its not the best thing in the world to happen but it does and I know who it is and ya need ta stop before ya mess up a relationship even further than ya aready have.You're just hurting yourself in the long run. Pinky(to the people that are trying to delete the hfl site you know me cause you gave this nickname to me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.8.40 (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All this talk about what this band has done, and yet not one single link to prove validity has been posted. If they are as big as they claim to be, there would be many EASILY obtainable sources, but the band member himself is unable to provide a single one.
As for the statement about how the bands large fan base relies on wikipedia for news and updates, that is NOT the purpose if wikipedia. Things such as that are left for a bands personal web site..which.. incidentally, this band has none (dead link).
personal vendetta or not, the point is still that this group is unable to provide an ounce of credible truth that they are in fact notable for the site.
resorting to attacking wikipedia with threats of "No one will donate if this continues" only shows an unprofessional approach on the matter. The mods have been simply asking for reference points, and the group has none to show. All they seem to have are words, and not facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC) — 65.2.198.190 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This band has it's own we site. A who is search shows they have had it since 2000. The website has also fallen under attack,that's why it's a dead link. People have provided links to show the notabllity of the band. Saying "havnt provided one link" is true. More than one have been given. I think the comments about no I e coming to wiki are true. It's not a threat. It's an observation on how actions like this in recent months is making people unhappy with wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.128.216.12 (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, after spending a day away and coming back to this page, it is quite obvious that there are two distinct camps in this argument...Those who are arguing for the page to be maintained by providing insightful discussion and links showing their credibility side-by-side with the notability guidelines set forth by wikipedia, and those that are simply yelling "Nah nah nah! I can't hear you! those don't count because of blah blah blah" - In the hopes that, for whatever their reasoning, the page will be taken down. They are expending alot of time and effort into making sure this page DOES NOT stay up. Why? What vested interest do these people have, if not simply to sabotage the page as HFLSeven is stating. They are no better than forum trolls, hoping that, even though they are few, the loudness of their complaining will sway the argument to their side, so they, as a minority, can have things their way. I don't think that's right, and I think it's childish. Leave well enough alone and go back to your life, it will be the same whether or not HFL's wikipedia page stays up or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.93.33 (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks more to me like there are three distinct camps. Two of those camps appear to be newcomers to Wikipedia: fans and/or members of the band who want the article kept, and the "enemies" of the band who want the article deleted. The third camp is actual Wikipedians (I make that to be Ihcoyc, Nick, Yappy2bhere, and me) who are judging the article's notability on its own merits (including its references, or lack thereof), not how much we like (or dislike) the band. Being new to Wikipedia, to be sure, does not invalidate the newcomers' opinions; and if even one of them gets interested in Wikipedia from their experience here (good or bad) and comes on board to edit articles and help improve the project this mess will all be worth it. However, I strongly recommend that anyone new to Wikipedia and the AFD process first read this and then carefully read this to better understand what we're talking about when we say things about "notability" and the like, and to better keep their arguments focused in a productive direction. TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to bring up again that it is not a personal vendetta or anything of the sort. The fact that I present over and over again is the inability for this group to give notable references. Every "link" they have posted (of which you have to do some digging in this article here to find) do not contain any third party main coverage of the group. Simply mentioning them as far as I have read does not qualify them. In the end, you claim that they should stay here because its a malicious attack. That may be what started it, but the point was brought up and is true, this band does not meet the criteria to be on the page. If an exception is made in this case, it would be used in arguments other bands have in order to keep their pages on here too (ie: Well that Human Factors Lab group were able to stay on without providing valid notable references, so we should too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MTV and blabberbouth mention hold merrit in the argument to keep the page. While it is true it is in the context of a tour headlined by mushroomhead, the fact that human factors lab was a part of the tour adds to thier notablity. They have done 2 seperate tours with mushroom as well as performed on tours with many other "notable" bands. Your average "local" band does not and can not do this. I would think the criteria needing to be net to be on several major national tours is probably much more severe that the critera set forth by wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.128.250.131 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was already pointed out that the subject of the MTV and Blabbermouth (which, is a blog supported by user supported data, and thus not a true valid third party source of information) were about mushroomhead and NOT Human Factors Lab. They are simply named and not discussed, and thus incidental and does not fit the requirement. Buying on to a tour does not make a band notable, the same as paying a band to do a remix for you..regardless of a shared genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There were opionions about the MTV and blabbermouth articles and counter opnions given as well. I belive they DO hold merrit. As far as buying onto tours and paying for remixes you are assuming that the only reason hfl was on these tours is because they paid. That is a false assumption. They were chosen because they were notable for the tour. Wheather they paid a buy on fee(which all bands do,including mushroom when they bought onto ozfest and mayhem fest),is irrelivant. It's part how the music industry works. Not EVERY band can have KMFDM and other bands do remixes. And not EVER band can tour with mushroomhead and be mentioned on MTV or blabbermouth. HFL did these things because they ARE notable. NOT because they have money. The state of the music industry these days I'd be shocked if they even had money —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.128.146.49 (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both the MTV and Blabbermouth articles only mention Human Factors Lab name ONCE, and each time just listing them as being on the tours. Not a single sentence is written that talks about them in any other way. Seeing how they were also a buy-on opening band and not a co-headliner also shows they are under qualified to meet the notability for this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.42.91 (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were NOT a buy on opening band for the tours,and there was no co-Headliner. Mushroomhead was the only headliner and autumn offer and human factors lab were both part of the tour package with different opening bands every night. According to the wiki guidlines human factors lab was on a tour that received national press. This meets the notability guidlines set by wiki. As do many other examples given in this debate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.128.250.70 (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the tour was not advertised as Mushroomhead and Human Factors lab (it was simply a Mushroomhead tour), the band was in fact just an opener. Side note: Web logs (such as blabbermouth and the MTV article which is a blog) are typically not viable sources of information. The band remains highly non qualified and incredibly unreferenced. To reinstate would give many other groups ground to re-add themselves as well using this article as an example. From what I understand, the guidelines are tight for a reason. The wikipedia moderators themselves have asked for SPECIFIC references and answers directly, and they are typically dodged as no support for the claims can be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.42.91 (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also to note is that Human Factors Lab is listed LAST in the list of bands that were on tour with them, which if that doesn't make them simply a buy-on opener, it proves they got no coverage on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The order of their listing has NOTHING to do with how notable they are.They order they performed also changed every night as well. Some nights they were the first band on.. somenight they went on right before the headliner. all the support bands were of upcoming equal national standing, with mushroomhead being the bigger, headlining band That statement just like EVERY statement you have made on here is simply to say " im not listing to you" as someone else pointed out. even though i disagree with some statements made by the logged in users as least can respect the fact that they give valid reasons for disagreeing and present it in a constructive manner. Its obvious you just have personal reasons for wanting the bands page taken down that have nothing to do with if they are notable or not. no matter what anyone says you either ignore it, or just say "no it isnt" human factors lab was NOT just a buy on band. There are ALWAYS expenses associated with tours as someone pointed out, its not like any band can walk in with bundle of cash and suddenly except to get on a national tour. it doesnt work that way. Bands are considered for tour the same way they are considered for Wiki. Who ever is putting the tour together looks at a list of criteria to see if the band should be on the tour. Examples=does the band have a simular fan base as the headliner, do they have a large enough fan base to contribute to overall ticket sales by being on the tour, do they have national radio/video play, do they have nation distro. This is why the press from the tour, and the tour itself is important in this conversation,and show that Human Factors Lab is in fact a notable band. if you had some local garage band, and a stack of cash you would NOT just be able to get on a tour like this? make sense? also here are some link to back up what i am saying about how the order of the names doesnt mean anything its just however the person writing the article felt like putting them. these thinks show Human Factors Lab in multiple cities being listed in all different spots. [10],[11], [12], [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 06:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try. 3 of those articles simply list the bands in alphabetical order, and the 4th one simply mentions the band as an opener. The blabbermouth and MTV articles went out of the way to list Human Factors Lab last. Also, buying on to tour is a very common practice. Buying on to a smaller tour (say as in Mushroomhead in comparison to a band like nine inch nails for example) really is only about money. If the buy-in had any merit, it would be called "Mushroomhead - With special guests (or featuring) Human factors lab". Your band was barely even a footnote in every single article. As stated several times, provide some actual notability, its been over 3 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.42.91 (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Human Factors Lab is a good up and comming band that has been touring the past few years. The person who started this band is a good guy who truly cares about his music and his fans. He has giving his heart and soul into his songs and shows his heart to all of his fans. His band also to cares about the art they are doing and are very commited to it and are in it for the love of it not the money. So I, a human factor lab fan is asking you to keep this page up for this hard working band —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.247.10 (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True as that may or may not be, that still doesn't validate them for wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.42.91 (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too promotional in the absence of independent secondary sources. Interested contributors should best register, find some third party coverage, request userfication, and start again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The nominator is a single purpose account and this is clearly a bad faith nomination. Why is any weight being given to this nomination? Swarm(Talk) 06:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bad Faith or not, they are being shown to be invalid for the site. The original nomination may have in fact been done maliciously, but should the band get a "Free pass" that allows them to remain on here even tho they do not meet the criteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gave no weight to the SPA nomination, but evaluated the article as I saw it. No that there are acceptable "delete" !votes, "Speedy keep" is not an option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know and completely agree. However I do think you're using the term "!votes" rather loosely. Swarm(Talk)
  • Multiple people have shown multiple examples of how the band is notable by wiki standards. You can chose to ignore that or say deny it but the evidence is there and I'm sure someone with a nurtal position with weigh the actually examples and ignore those who are simply here to have the page deleted without showing any real cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.128.250.14 (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Only a few people have tried to say they are valid, but the MODERATORS keep confirming that they aren't. Read the history above, all I see are the mods continuing to say the band has not provided valid sources of notability. The main defensive posters here all share the same bad spelling, and one is from a mobile phone IP address. Also as said above, If you wish to defend yourself with any merit, it would be wise to REGISTER an account and post as yourself instead of one person on various IPs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have heard of the band Human Factors Lab. Living in Florida I have seen the band a handful of times. I noticed that 16VOLT was brought up in this discussion. I saw 16VOLT on the Denial Highway Tour in Atlanta, GA at The Masquerade and Sev3n was not onstage with the band. I ended up meeting Eric Powell at that show and asked why Sev3n was not there. To my surprise I was told he was unable to play the guitar or keyboard parts, so he never played with them onstage. He was then moved over to the position of sound man and couldn't do that job either and eventually he went home. Being from Florida I can also tell you that they draw maybe 50 people at the most locally. If you did deeper into the history of this band you will see that the majority of tours the band has done have been regional tours with other little known acts. The only tours the band has done that brought them any attention were the two buy ons with Mushroomhead. You can't buy any of their albums in a record store or Hot Topic. I've looked for them in both and they are nowhere to be found. The band in my opinion falls short of the requirements seeing as how I would only consider them to be a regional band that has had minimal press. Most of the press I have seen from them has been through a few local magazines here in Florida and a small internet buzz. They were lucky enough to have an opportunity to open for a national band on two different occasions but anybody with a band and enough money to throw around can do the same.65.3.68.21 (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC) HB[reply]
  • Delete. I would prefer to have seen a speedy keep closure with NPSAR early on due to the obvious bad faith nomination, followed by a renomination by an editor acting in good faith. It is as important (if not more) to discredit bad faith nominations as it is to discredit the opinions of single purpose accounts participating in the discussion. Since this is obviously not the case, I have to say delete due to the fact that they aren't notable. Swarm(Talk) 20:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBAND. I found only two sources that discuss the band at all [14] [15], neither covering the band in any depth. The Rag interview represents the only serious editorial interest in this band. Of course, if user:HFLSev3n can cite some of those "hundreds of printed reviews and articles" I'll reconsider my !vote. I'm frankly puzzled by user:Swarm's concern with the nominator's motive. Isn't a "bad faith" nomination a nomination of an article that is prima facie notable? What does that have to do with motive? Yappy2bhere (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews of HFL albums Pap3r and PLASTIK, and an intervew with HFL. Yappy2bhere (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to point out that both articles are hosted on the same site. The site itself is sketchy. Hosted on a free server (doesn't even have its own domain) as listed on its main page, and run by a single user. A pretty far stretch for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic we should entirely disregard your statements here ("doesn't even have its own [user account]"). Fabryka may well the work of a single user, but it does have a ten year history reporting on its chosen genre [16]. It's up to each editor to decide how these two references contribute to notability, but to characterize Fabryka as "sketchy" is unfounded. Tell us, which genre-specific publications could establish the notability of this band? You've said that Fabryka isn't relevant, but what then is industrial rock's Rolling Stone? Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you say yesterday that "[i]f you wish to defend yourself with any merit, it would be wise to REGISTER an account and post as yourself instead of one person on various IPs." [17] Have you changed your opinion, or do your own views as an IP lack merit? Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with the nomination is that anonymous users usually don't make their first and only contributions to Wikipedia by listing an AfD. Bad faith nominations (any nomination made with malicious intent) can (and should, in my opinion) be speedily closed. However, this is an exceptional circumstance since the bad faith deletion attempt is validated by deletion policy. I'm not saying it's a bad nomination in itself. I don't think it would make sense to close the discussion at all, now. However, I don't like to see blatantly bad faith actions supported on Wikipedia. Not really a big deal, that was just a side opinion I threw in, and I still cast my opinion in the discussion in favor of deletion. Swarm(Talk) 00:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Print and web - http://www.zillo.de/index_original.html , http://www.musicmaniac.de/tin/magazines.html , http://www.regenmag.com/ , http://www.side-line.com/ , http://www.movinghands.net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Several things to be pointed out: A regional publication, even from someplace that you may not be from, is still a REGIONAL publication. Is it national? No? Then it's regional. Sorry. Two: Just because you've heard of the band does not mean, in the grand scheme of things, that a band is notable. Ask people outside of the scene, and if they've heard of them, we can consider the notability. Three: Where are these 'hundreds' of articles and interviews? I'm pretty sure that if I had something of such acclaim, I'd keep it. In fact, I do- and I did. I know exactly which edition of Gothic Beauty, or Side Line, or whatever...so what were you in, hmm? Give us a little proof, please! That is the point here, you know, so if you want to save your band's Wiki....show us! That's all you have to do, Sev3n! Give us one article in a NATIONAL publication, and all of this is moot. It all goes away! All arguments of band ethics, of the buy-ons, all of it will just stop. Also...what did you do to draw the ire of so many people? If so many are 'vandalizing' this page, I'd be pretty concerned with my own behaviour. Just a thought. But honestly...give us ONE article to prove us wrong. Something tells me you just can't, though. GraceEgg (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)— GraceEgg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Is there some reason a regional publication can't be a reliable source? The R.A.G. interview[18], which you've overlooked or ignored, is a good step toward notability, but in my opinion one such is not enough. Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they can be, but lots are kindof fly-by-night publlications, and (living in the general area) Rag is one of those types. There just isn't enough journalistic integrity to lend credence to that being a major mention. However, that being said...if he has 'hundreds', why is that all we get? Surely in those masses there must be something that many of us have heard of. Maybe even something that's a little less regional- ie, something statewide as opposed to just one small area. Really, that's what I'm looking for. Some kind of recognition. And if you don't have it, that's fine- but can he please be honest about it? GraceEgg (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't even a single comment made on the bands OFFICIAL MYSPACE post to show support over this bands notability. Their large fanbase must all be on vacation or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.42.91 (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There will not be any mentions on the bands MySpace or anywhere else because their "huge fanbase" is nothing more than small handfuls of people sprinkled across the east coast and midwest. By small I'd say somewhere between 5-10 per state and that's being generous. The band can barely draw in their own home state. If Deadstar Assembly had their page removed so should Human Factors Lab. At least Deadstar has had ads in real magazines like Guitar World and can actually draw a crowd. 65.3.128.41 (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC) HB[reply]
I would like to say that although its appreciated (As I am a representative of Deadstar Assembly), this is not a debate over that group or band. Please allow this page to be about Human Factors Lab, as its already a huge debate and I'd rather keep it easier for them to state their claims without too much clutter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elblots (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'm just stating that by comparison Deadstar has more credibility. I'm all for the deletion of the HFL page. 65.3.128.41 (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC) HB[reply]
Please don't toss in facts and figures without citing sources to support what you say. Paid advertisement doesn't contribute to notability. Popularity can be a factor, but in this case I think its the difference between a few fans vs a few more. Each article is judged on its own merits; it's irrelevant to this discussion that there is no Deadstar Assembly article. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous...at this point, the band could post a full page article from Rolling Stone and you'd all STILL find a way to downplay that... Every SINGLE link that's been posted, when really only one is necesarry, gets attacked for its "notability"...I lived in South Florida for most of my life, and while I was there, Rag magazine was THE music magazine to go to for any information about artists, shows, and everything music industry in South Florida- Just because you disagree doesn't make it any less true. So it's Regional - So are newspapers, radio stations, etc. You've gone from disputing the band's notability to attacking the notability on each individual article or piece of evidence. You're asking for proof, people are providing it, and you reply with "that's not good enough, and this is why" every single time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.93.33 (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the links were in fact notable and unquestionable, there would be no room for debate. The moderators themselves have pointed out many times now what they are looking for. If there were in fact HUNDREDS of articles written about the band, one with more notability shouldn't be so hard to find. Only posting one source shows that the group in fact has little coverage and as such, do not belong on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.198.190 (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if this band can come up with something that meets the Wiki requirements, I'll be first in line to change my vote. But I think we all understand that being mentioned once in passing does not qualify as 'notable', especially when the main defender and lead singer of the band can't even correctly spell the name of someone who he's supposedly friends with and is the lead singer of the 'notable' band he's been in (which has already been proven to be untrue by a previous poster). And (to keep this a short rebuttal), Rag used to be locally pertinent. Not so much anymore. We're just saying that if there is question about its notability (which there is), give us something better! If I'm shown bigger proof about this band's qualifications to be here, then I'll gladly change my tune. But even people like me, completely outside the situation, can't find anything reputable online about this band! Maybe you can find something for us that will keep them here? Please, show me something concrete! And the mods are the ones who ultimately decide, so maybe instead of attacking people on here, you should spend some time digging up evidence for the mods so this band can stay here. Our comments don't mean much, but their opinion rules the day. GraceEgg (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that the HUNDREDS of articles written about the band don't exist except for probably in their own minds. Also anybody with enough money to throw around can tour with "notable" bands. If this band were as big as they claim they wouldn't have to name drop as much as they do. They would be able to stand on their own accomplishments. Not ride on the coat tails of bands that actually do something. 65.3.128.41 (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC) HB[reply]
  • I don't understand why a debate on notability has turned into personal attacks. If you have a opnion to keep or delete. That's fine. But the personal attacks on the members of the band and the singer just take away from what ever point was. As far as the "hundreds of articles". That is probably an exageration. With a little research there are several articles on the Internet about the band,most of them as a result of the mushroomhead tours. Ranging from a simple mention of the name,brief paragraph,and full page write ups. I am guessing these would be likley to exist in just about every city they played during their last 2 tours. Some examples have already been posted. I am guessing this is what "hundreds of articles" is refering to. And if so. Then it's true. If they were saying they have hundreds of articles in rolling stone(which they never claimed). Then it would be false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.134.114.147 (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets notability requirements (WP:BAND) specifically #5, being signed to an established independent label that has a roster of performers (e.g. Angel Bartolotta of "Team Cybergeist", and Psychotica), with whom they've released two albums. In assessing media coverage, this is analogous to other orgs I suppose; they've some coverage in regional media, and further research in the specialist press would likely yield more in depth material to develop the article. I added a few refs. –Whitehorse1 13:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of the references you added, [1], [3], [4], [6], [7], and [8] appear to be trivial coverage of performance dates, and [5] is the Broward/Palm Beach New Times article I listed above, but what please is said in reference [2]? (And of course, please correct me if I've misrepresented the other references.) I don't agree that element 5 of WP:BAND is satisfied, though, because I think the label needs more than a two notable performers before it can be "one of the more important indie labels." Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Six and eight were already part of the article; eight is the label by the way. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune [2] is incidental; it's just a citation on the award nominee point. The refs I added addressed {{fact}} tags placed in the article, e.g. [1] sourced their first live performance being at South Florida's "Culture Room" club. –Whitehorse1 22:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here's a recap of sources posted here—not used in article:
    • Fabryka - Industrial Rock Magazine: Particularly in non 'commercial' areas, smaller scale press can gain solid repute over time. Established ten years; although online, I've not seen any reason to dismiss out of hand. The link is to an in depth interview of the band. The other link was a review of their album.
    • "Dane101.com": Likely not especially reliable, but would in no way be used to support notability. Alongside reliable sources, the piece could source a simple claim x played with y.
    • Blabbermouth.net (this one's in): Contrary to suggestion above, this is a reliable source. Significant consultation by the established press (see here) mean even if they present information in blog format, it's validity is unaffected.
    • RAG - newspaper: Three page interview (interesting enough snippet on pg.2 sees the interviewer note they'd signed a deal with Toxic Shock Records, and asking how that came about. The impression is the interviewer considers the label to be one of some renown). A further three chunky paragraph album review. That they're regional doesn't exclude them.
    • MTV: Likewise, part of a large media organization. It matters not a jot if it's in blog format. Contentious claims about people ('John Smith eats babies') would be a different matter, but that not the case here.
    • Additionally there are the six regional newspapers already added to the article citing existing small points. Last, primary sourcing from the label; plus, a linked page of band founding member Seven on Dean Guitars website, who apparently thought him sufficiently notable to spotlight.
  • Depth of coverage:
The majority of sources they are mentioned in are incidental. The Rag and Fabryka being the only exceptions. R.A.G. magazine, however has no valid reference link. Yes theres a magazine scan, but I was under the impression that in order for a link to be notable it needed to be referenced by a third party and not the band itself. The linked images are on the bands own myspace, and thus not a secondary source in my opinion. Photoshop is a wonderful thing, afterall. (not saying this is the case here, but putting it as an example).
Dean guitars lists every artist they endorse, regardless of their significance, on a spotlighted page. http://www.deanguitars.com/home.php Does this automatically mean that if a group is endorsed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.229.112 (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple exceptions in other words. No, there's no need to provide online links to newspaper or other secondary sources according to the Verifiability policy. Thank you for the clarification about Dean guitars; their endorsement criteria in no way affect validity of the remainder of my points. –Whitehorse1 23:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up w/the periods in RAG. A search on that brought their site up. Their issue archive lets anyone verify the interview in the (June '08) issue. –Whitehorse1 00:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Their releases are not on "one of the more important indie labels", and no other criteria are fulfilled. Yilloslime TC 18:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel that Toxic Shock is an important indie label. Their roster is small but in addition to Human Factors Lab they do have notable label mates. Also given the state of the music industry these days most bands are chosing to stay completely indie, or work with Indie labels. Toxic Shock has become a very important figure in this industrial music scene, as well as the music scene in general. in addition to to the bands they have on their roster, they also work on varies other projects with other bands. Is there a guidline, or a way to see if Toxic shock is " one of the more important indie labels" by wiki standards? I have stated my opinion of what i believe to be true, but i am sure one of the many unregistered IPs that have been chiming in and stopped to personally attacking will say " no it isnt" to just about anything i say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 23:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • a notable independent label has a far larger roster of artists (toxic shock has a whole...9). For example, metropolis records. Independent, lots more signed artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.229.112 (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. The WP:BAND criterion reads: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." I'm not sure how many performers are on the roster matters beyond a certain point; if they'd a couple've bands period, that'd be different. Of theirs, it's pretty much accepted two are Notable (22%); three if you count Mikee Plastik (evaluating pre-Internet 'underground performance artists' can be hard); or four, when you count this one. –Whitehorse1 22:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also spoken, in passing, to several other artists on the Toxic Shock label, and they have mentioned that the owner is considering dropping HFL over 'undisclosed legal issues'. So it may be that the label thing is moot regardless. Just wanted to add that in. GraceEgg (talk) 06:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, though it's basically hearsay, so we wouldn't be able to factor it into any decision. –Whitehorse1 22:17, 11 February 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Human_Factors_Lab&oldid=1068870221"