Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scars Souls

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. Sandstein 09:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scars Souls[edit]

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

PROD removed. Band does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Possible WP:GARAGE and COI since the article's creator and main contributor is the band's drummer. Most of the sources cited are not reliable (band's own website, blogs) or merely state that the band exists (record label website, last.fm). XXX antiuser ^eh? 17:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for keeping the article up and running:
Yes, I am indeed the drummer, however, the band no longer exists. So the intention isn't promote the band or something like that, the idea behind to create the Wikipedia article is because Scars Souls is part of the Heavy Metal history in Brazil. The band played at the main concert venues in Brazil during its existence, it has three album (with label record - Masque Records ("Gravadora Masque Records". masquerecords.com.), beside that, it was invited to participate of 4 collections, one of them was released by Garage Art Cult, called Garage Voices. Garage Art Cult was stage of bands like: Agnostic Front, Angra, Madball, Planet Hemp, Los Hermanos, Exodus, Dorsal Atlântica and many others.
So please, don't erase part of Heavy Metal history in Brazil.
PS: During 90' and 00' the Internet was not so popular in Brazil, as it is today, because of that you cannot see a lot of articles about the band, but all Rock Magazines from that time has published articles about all three albums.
Acaj77 14:50, 27 April 2016 (GMT -3)
- @Acaj77: that is not the point. All those bands you mentioned were extensively covered by independent reliable sources. The sources cited in the article being discussed here are either not considered reliable by Wikipedia policy, or merely state that the band exists. By Wikipedia policy, existence does not prove notability. The article as it stands simply does not meet any of the guidelines of WP:MUSIC and borders on WP:LIPSTICK. XXX antiuser ^eh? 20:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as made by drummer, WP:GARAGE applies, not notable. Written like an advertisement.ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Acaj77: if the band was reviewed in Brazilian rock magazines of the time then the onus is on you to provide citations to those magazines (date, issue, page number) as reliable sources, not link to your own web pages as "proof" of your importance. Richard3120 (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Acaj77's comment: Hello guys, I added several citations from various magazines, some of them I could find some links, but again, since it is too old, it isn't detailed, please check it out if it is Okay now or if you need anything else. If necessary I can share scanned pages from these magazines. Thank you @Richard3120: and @Antiuser: for your support.
Comment Well, this is the usual blizzard of links provided by a new editor and/or SPA. I don't know now, my feeling is to WP:TNT the article and write it without User:Acaj77 having any input due to COI. But that's if it's notable, which I'm doubtful about.ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the links to the band's webiste, the links to Acaj77's own website, the links to the record company/graphic designer websites, and the hyperlinks to articles that don't exist online all need to be removed, plus the POV statements such as "After the excellent response to Troia..." – after that maybe we can see what's left. Richard3120 (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. It's not just being wary in terms of the questionable offline citations and the unreliable online sources. We seem to have a case where a band maybe had a semi-significant role in a particular musical scene, maybe, but that's it. The group, as its own thing outside of that context, doesn't even begin to appear notable. This is not what one builds a good article on. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that it's a bit rich to call non-WWW sources "questionable" when many of them are dated 1993 and 1994. The editor has provided citations with publication, dateline, byline, title, and even exact page number in most cases. If a criticism of the reliability and provenance of a source is nothing more than "It's not on-line.", as it has been in this discussion since the editor provided these citations, then that reflects more on the editors making the criticisms than on the source itself. And it does not reflect well. The onus is now on the people questioning the sources to provide an explanation of why they are not reliable, independent, or in-depth coverage. We have been given exact details of what to look at. Uncle G (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2016 (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.