Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internal Suffering

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 keep. So Why 13:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Suffering[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per ~~WP:CSD#A7~~ -- allen四names 03:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't meet speedy criteria because they released five albums. Joe Chill (talk) 03:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:V then. -- allen四names 03:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing my vote. If the external links I added are RS then WP:V has been met. -- allen四names 02:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal Delete Unsourced band with a myspace link. Miami33139 (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No brutal death for this Columbian Brutal Death Metal band. The page on the Spanish Wikipedia is more informative and, while unsourced, with many claims to notability. Joe, how extensively did you search, before you pulled out your standard phrase "I cannot find significant coverage" for this non-English band? Even if you dont understand Spanish, at the very least you could throw the Spanish Wikipeia page into Google translate. The band's style is "Brutal Death Metal", with other bands like Regurgitate, Dead Infection, Very Rotten Flesh etc - I'm no connoisseur but would say absolute niche, but not unnotable per se according to guidelines (and oh yes, no problems with policy WP:V). A CD of theirs was elected best CD of 2006 in Germany (NB: in that niche!!). Check them out at Amazon [1] arent some of the labels independent? There are several interviews, in Colombia (Spanish) [2], in German [3], another German interview translated to English [4], they found mention in a Colombian newspaper when they played with the notable US band Cannibal Corpse there [5], they find mention in the Argentine music scene [6], they are sort of a stylistic reference point in this interview with Infested Blood (it's a band) [7], they tour in Colombia [8], they have toured in the USA [9], they have performed at a Deathfest in Japan [10], and I believe I read they would perform in UK 2010. Niche yes, non-notable no. Could we please have some more dilligent nominations, out of respect for the AfD process and, not the least, other Wikipedian's time. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is still fresh so you have time to add these sources to the article, until then my vote remains delete per WP:V. -- allen四names 10:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used multiple searches on Google, accessmylibrary, and BNET so please learn to not act like a dick when you find sources that someone else didn't. What is really dickish is "Even if you don't understand Spanish, at the very least you could throw the Spanish Wikipedia page into Google translate.". At the very least? Barely anyone would have thought to see if it was on another Wikipedia. You're a dick to people that don't follow WP:BEFORE and to users that do, when you find sources that they didn't. Joe Chill (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect decent work, constructive efforts and people's feelings, and that includes the feelings of the editors' whose work you propose to delete, because you "cannot find" something. WP:BIAS is a huge problem with foreign language sources, in particular in this case, when there is a lot of dilution due to the regular meaning of "internal suffering". Other language Wikipedias are listed in the left column, under 'languages', and they do pop up in Google. Your inability to find sources was particularly egrerious in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megarex and I believe I have a sound basis for asking you how extensively you carry out your searches. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bias. If I find foreign language sources, I use Google Translate. I have saved articles like Olex2, FanFiction.net, Chris Rock: Kill the Messenger, Gummo, Halloweenight, Feeders (film), Ashford.com, McDull Kung Fu Ding Ding Dong, The A-Team (film), HitClips, Hellmouth (band), Will Miley Save Fuzzy?, Natacha Merritt, Slaughter Disc, Winta, Pencil Full Of Lead, and Nathan Greene so please don't use dickish comments. Joe Chill (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must say Joe Chill often does extensive searches for sources on his AFD work. There have been quite a few AFDs where I have found little to no sources and Mr. Chill has found many. In addition there have been many articles which have changed tide to keep because of the sources that he has found. Just because there has been an AFD or two where he hasn't found every source shouldn't be a reason to attack. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power, in many other AfD commentaries you have been quite willing to accept any random internet mention from completely unreliable sources as showing notability. I don't think this is any different. Lists of tour dates, fan-written zine interviews, event calendars in the local paper. None of this is solid reliable sourcing - in any language. You really need to step up to the challenge of showing undeniably good sources if you are going to blast another editor. Bombarding an AfD hoping the sheer amount of it will bring weight is not helpful. Miami33139 (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the external link I added are RS so I am not changing my vote yet, but try searching for Internal Suffering's songs instead of them. -- allen四names 20:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Correction. -- allen四names 20:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miami, are you saying that the problem is now WP:V? The deletion rationale is based on WP:N. Articles are NOT deleted for being unsourced, they are deleted for being unsourceable. The sources that I located support a fairly solid assumption, that this band is notable within its subculture, with the independent mention in media and concert tours, not only in different countries, but on different continents. Before this AfD I had absolutely no idea that a "Brutal Death Metal" subculture existed, I still have no idea of what media to search in, and I have no idea what sort of printed media might be relevant and the extent to which such media may show up in Google. But I do know, that printed media in many countries actively keep Google out. I know the state of affairs for Denmark quite well. Only some media content is released into the Internet realm - for the highly reputable quality newspaper Weekendavisen, only content for the past three months is searchable, then it is transferred to a separate company, Infomedia, where it is only searchable, and accessible, with a valid subscription - it's a basic issue of protection of intellectual rights, it's plainly a pecuniary issue. An editor told me the same situation exists in Mexico, as I was at pains to grasp why I had absolutely no Google hits in Mexican newspapers and magazines for a person I would assume to be prima facie notable there. It is notoriously difficult to access Japanese media, both language and alphabet issues, but also an issue of protection of intellectual rights. The other day I could not access a Brazilian newspaper, a "Revista" sort of thing, likely a weekly printed cultural inlay to the regular newspaper, without subscription. There seem to be an overreliance on Google to pick up everything. I have seen deletion rationales for German scientists who died more than 150 years ago based on lack of Google footprint. English has become the de-facto international language of the world and Wikipeida is an international encyclopedia aiming at nothing less than capturing the knowledge of the world. Lack of Google footprint should be interpreted very cautiously, in particular for non-English sources, and especially if consistent circumstantial evidence exist that sources in fact do exist outside Google. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of systemic bias in both Wikipedia and Google, as well as english language sourcing issues. Just yesterday I voted to keep an article based on Chinese language sources. This band is based out of New York, USA. You should not have trouble finding English language sources for a New York band that meets our inclusion criteria. Miami33139 (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your comment I tried to locate New York sources, and you know what, they may have broken up in 2007 after relocating to New York [11]. There is also a claim the same year that they were nominated as "Best Colombian Metal Band Of The Year" by popular Colombian mainstream magazine SHOCK - I have no idea if Columbian editors can verify it. Honestly, I couldnt care less about this band, and I'm puzzled that I find myself spending time here on these silly bands, software, exotic dicdefs, Inca gods, Muslim clerics and what have you. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, I'm not saying YOU are biased, it's your search results that are biased. See WP:BIAS - "imbalanced coverage of a subject". Power.corrupts (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know what you mean. Joe Chill (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Br00tal Comment there may be one source on blabbermouth.net [12]. It may also be worth noting that the Spanish article has no sources, and is poorly written (not saying that AFD is a cleanup, but if the band was very notable, the article would most likely have been cleaned up). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Use Google news search, but add in the word "band". They get mentioned in The Gauntlet and the Washington Post [13] being notable enough to appear at an event with others that got mentioned in the article. Other appearances as well. Dream Focus 09:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Washington Post coverage is extremely trivial and is the type of coverage (announcement of a concert date and nothing else) rejected outright by the WP:BAND notability guideline. Miami33139 (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Dream Focus.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources listed by Power.corrupts and by DreamFocus are sufficient to guarantee notability to this band, according to WP:BAND#1. Victor Silveira (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline states exactly the opposite of that statement. Miami33139 (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miami, I read the guideline and your discussion with Power.corrupts and Joe Chill, but I can not see why these sources doesn't give notability to the band. Your arguments are too weak. Justify it better, please. Explain me minutely, according the guideline.Victor Silveira (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Power.corrupts' diligent research and cogent argument. Sources clearly indicate notability. If I might make a more general comment, I would also concur with the suggestion that when attempting to ascertain the notability or otherwise of foreign subjects, the relevant foreign-language Wikipedia article (where applicable) is often a good place to start. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 04:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.