Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skylark (Italian band)
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 keep. John254 00:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Skylark (Italian band)[edit]
- Skylark (Italian band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article fails WP:MUSIC, in my opinion, and does not assert why the group are notable. They've released albums on numerous labels, the only notable one being Metal Blade (just one album). A group can be notable if they have "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)", and I don't believe the group qualify under this criterion. Delete LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I did some work on this page. They also released on Scarlet Records, and had at least one release on Pony Canyon in Japan. They did several tours of Europe and one world tour, which passes WP:MUSIC, and have biographies in Allmusic and Rockdetector. Chubbles (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a former member of staff for Rockdetector, I can say 110% that Rockdetector isn't notable, not to mention reliable. First of all, a metal group merely has to register in order to create their own page, and can submit their own biography. Rockdetector hasn't even been updated since November 2007. Skylark's Allmusic biography contains nothing that asserts their notability. Furthermore, please prove that the group has "received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source" as regards their tours per the WP:MUSIC. criteria. Scarlet Records cannot be recognised as "one of the more important indie labels", as aside from publishing the albums of two Björn "Speed" Strid side projects, it'd be quite some stretch to say that the label has a roster of performers of which "many" "are notable". LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Allmusic is an independent source covering a world tour, which passes WP:MUSIC. Furthermore, international releases on Metal Blade and Pony Canyon would also satisfy it, and the Scarlet releases are nothing to be disregarded. Aside from that, they have biographies on at least three metal websites, which speak of repeated reviews in metal magazines; the group has more than enough coverage to meet WP:MUSIC bullet 1. That's three criteria they meet. Chubbles (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove that the Allmusic coverage of their tour isn't "trivial", as I contest it is in no way "non-trivial". It's merely mentioned in passing, and in no detail whatsoever. Also, prove that Pony Canyon is a notable label - the article on its parent company is a mere stub, and the label itself list no known groups. Also, prove that these three metal websites satisfy WP:RS. That's three reasons they don't meet the criteria. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anything I've brought to the table is of poor quality so far. You have sown doubts which I think are unreasonable, and I know that these debates are, unfortunately, typically "won" or "lost" by who posts last. So I won't feel a need to continue the discussion unless there is some sort of mischaracterization. I will merely restate, succinctly, that the group passes WP:MUSIC by: 1.) considerable third-party coverage (some of which is offline, but much of which is international); 2.) several releases on well-known labels (the reasonably well-known Scarlet, the pivotal Metal Blade, and the Japanese major label Pony Canyon); and 3.) international touring (a reliable source attesting to a tour on three different continents). Chubbles (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I merely ask that people read my rebuttal prior to Chubble's last comment, which adequately refutes these claims. Chubbles has thus far not stated which reliable third-parties have covered the group, and how they meet WP:RS. I contest that Scarlet Records isn't reasonably well-known - I'm not a particular fan of attempting to stretch the truth, and these claims that the label is reasonably well-known are rather thin. Also, the claim that Pony Canyon is a major label is simply untrue - the only major label which prominently releases metal music in Japan is JVC Victor. Furthermore, Chubbles hasn't proven that Allmusic's coverage of the group's tours is "non-trivial", and the guidelines clearly state the coverage must be non-trivial. I contest that the coverage is "trivial", and was merely gleaned from a promotional biography Allmusic received alongside a promotional copy of one of the group's CDs. My three reasons why they don't meet the criteria still stand, and Chubbles failed to adequately respond to my last comment and prove what I asked him to. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anything I've brought to the table is of poor quality so far. You have sown doubts which I think are unreasonable, and I know that these debates are, unfortunately, typically "won" or "lost" by who posts last. So I won't feel a need to continue the discussion unless there is some sort of mischaracterization. I will merely restate, succinctly, that the group passes WP:MUSIC by: 1.) considerable third-party coverage (some of which is offline, but much of which is international); 2.) several releases on well-known labels (the reasonably well-known Scarlet, the pivotal Metal Blade, and the Japanese major label Pony Canyon); and 3.) international touring (a reliable source attesting to a tour on three different continents). Chubbles (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove that the Allmusic coverage of their tour isn't "trivial", as I contest it is in no way "non-trivial". It's merely mentioned in passing, and in no detail whatsoever. Also, prove that Pony Canyon is a notable label - the article on its parent company is a mere stub, and the label itself list no known groups. Also, prove that these three metal websites satisfy WP:RS. That's three reasons they don't meet the criteria. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Allmusic is an independent source covering a world tour, which passes WP:MUSIC. Furthermore, international releases on Metal Blade and Pony Canyon would also satisfy it, and the Scarlet releases are nothing to be disregarded. Aside from that, they have biographies on at least three metal websites, which speak of repeated reviews in metal magazines; the group has more than enough coverage to meet WP:MUSIC bullet 1. That's three criteria they meet. Chubbles (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a former member of staff for Rockdetector, I can say 110% that Rockdetector isn't notable, not to mention reliable. First of all, a metal group merely has to register in order to create their own page, and can submit their own biography. Rockdetector hasn't even been updated since November 2007. Skylark's Allmusic biography contains nothing that asserts their notability. Furthermore, please prove that the group has "received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source" as regards their tours per the WP:MUSIC. criteria. Scarlet Records cannot be recognised as "one of the more important indie labels", as aside from publishing the albums of two Björn "Speed" Strid side projects, it'd be quite some stretch to say that the label has a roster of performers of which "many" "are notable". LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The Allmusic bio seems rather convincing. I haven't been able to verify the international tour, but between at least one good source and a couple other claims, they seem to just barely meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think Metal Blade Recording can be considered an important label but with only one release on that label and all other releases on smaller indie labels without much significance it still doesnt seem to pass criteria 5. Whether a profile on allmusic alone can be considered proof of notability is debatable. Any idea who wrote the bio? Is it a major contributor? --neon white talk 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Eduardo Rivadavia is a major contributor. Chubbles (talk) 20:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He's a staff member - this doesn't verify or shed light on anything. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It increases the verifiability of the source alot. --neon white talk 03:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, all paid members of staff obviously contribute, so it doesn't verify anything at all. Feel free to actually read the biography, and not rest your case on the fact they actually have one. The bio is modest at best, and merely regurgitates info gleaned from the promotional material, as All Music base their biographies mostly upon the promotional material they receive - other sites do the same, but if used, would be condemned. LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure exactly what point you are making, professionals are unverifiable?! What makes it verifiable is that the bio was written by a respected allmusic contributor, what the bio actually says has absolutely no bearing on it's verifiability. Similarily, where articles are sourced is not our concern. --neon white talk 13:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am making the point that who wrote the Allmusic biography isn't relevant, since all Allmusic's staff are paid contributors. If Ed Rivadavia wrote an article for Allmusic, and say Thom Jurek wrote another, Rivadavia's is not any more or less noteworthy. In other words, the fact Rivadavia is accredited doesn't verify or shed light on anything as concerns the bio's worth. So no, it does not increase the verifability of the source alot as you wrongly claim. You say that Rivadavia is a respected Allmusic contributor, and are insinuating his opinion has extra weight than that of others writing for the same publication - ok, prove it. Show me third party, reliable sources that say he is respected etc. etc., but more specifically prove this isn't a mere opinion of yours and / or Chubbles. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The work of a credible journalist who has a reputation has far more verifiability than an amateur journalist, that's just common sense and the basis of verifiability policy. He's been with allmusic for 9 years, is widely cited on heavy metal and has written liner notes for many artists [1], He isn't some hack writing puff peices. --neon white talk 22:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am making the point that who wrote the Allmusic biography isn't relevant, since all Allmusic's staff are paid contributors. If Ed Rivadavia wrote an article for Allmusic, and say Thom Jurek wrote another, Rivadavia's is not any more or less noteworthy. In other words, the fact Rivadavia is accredited doesn't verify or shed light on anything as concerns the bio's worth. So no, it does not increase the verifability of the source alot as you wrongly claim. You say that Rivadavia is a respected Allmusic contributor, and are insinuating his opinion has extra weight than that of others writing for the same publication - ok, prove it. Show me third party, reliable sources that say he is respected etc. etc., but more specifically prove this isn't a mere opinion of yours and / or Chubbles. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure exactly what point you are making, professionals are unverifiable?! What makes it verifiable is that the bio was written by a respected allmusic contributor, what the bio actually says has absolutely no bearing on it's verifiability. Similarily, where articles are sourced is not our concern. --neon white talk 13:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, all paid members of staff obviously contribute, so it doesn't verify anything at all. Feel free to actually read the biography, and not rest your case on the fact they actually have one. The bio is modest at best, and merely regurgitates info gleaned from the promotional material, as All Music base their biographies mostly upon the promotional material they receive - other sites do the same, but if used, would be condemned. LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It increases the verifiability of the source alot. --neon white talk 03:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He's a staff member - this doesn't verify or shed light on anything. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said he is a "hack writing puff pieces", but then I equally don't believe that other members of their staff fall under that definition. Also, I wasn't aware that Allmusic hire "amateur journalists" either. Furthermore, I still would like to know where he is "widely cited" on heavy metal. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per TPH. Allmusic is a reliable source as far as I am concerned. sparkl!sm hey! 20:19, 27 July 2008 (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.