Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Throes of Dawn
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. Canley (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Throes of Dawn[edit]
- Throes of Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
'Delete Does not meet notability requirements as set out in WP:MUSIC. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Easily meets the guideline with five albums released through notable labels, and plenty of sources available. Prolog (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- neg neither woodcut or wounded love are notable indy labels, def does not meet WP:MUSIC -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wounded Love = Avantgarde Music. Anyway, the four links above are enough. Prolog (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wounded Love is a label in its own right which is owned by Avantgarde. You can't say that something released on Wounded Love has been released on Avantgarde. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt if trivial links like that (that aren't even in English!) would suffice. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you consider interviews as "trivial", I wonder what coverage is non-trivial enough for you. And yes, non-English sources are allowed and often used in the English Wikipedia. Prolog (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Q: What do you think of the current black metal scene? A: Blah, blah, blah, we are great, everything else is unoriginal, worship us! = notable ??? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe that question/answer combination is from any of those sources I presented, so maybe you should stick to the English language sources such as these. Prolog (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it's just me, but I don't think that press releases issued by their American distributor undeniably prove their notability, most entirely trivial which only mention the band. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is hard to say what proves a band "undeniably notable", but it is not hard to say that this band meets criteria 1, 5 (Wounded Love Records, Cleopatra Records, two re-issues by Avantgarde Music) and 6 (Rotten Sound, ...and Oceans) of your preferred guideline for notability; WP:MUSIC. Prolog (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they do not meet 1. read the list of exclusions, nor 5, reprints don't count. If you're therefore hinging your vote on 6, perhaps we could just create a redirect to Oceans or Rotten sound per WP:MUSIC. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The interviews I listed already meet criterion 1. If you want to list your own rules like "reprints don't count" and "sub-labels of notable labels are not notable", maybe you should create User:Librarianofages/Notability. I'm fairly certain you won't find many editors agreeing with these positions. Prolog (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, i'm not taking liberty to do any such thing.. It states "releases", a reprint is not a release. and please read carefully, it says that articles "where the band talk about themselves" are not valid. Perhaps it should be you who creates User:Prolog/Liberalsinterpretationsonatheme. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Our article disagrees with you; "...an album which has been released at least once before and is released again...". A re-release is therefore a release. Magazine articles about bands are almost always made in interview form. The "band talking about themselves" part is not meant to rule out interview-based sources. Guidelines are advisory and should be treated with common sense, so whenever you have to "read carefully", you are in fact reading too carefully. Prolog (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or one might not be reading carefully enough ;) -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Our article disagrees with you; "...an album which has been released at least once before and is released again...". A re-release is therefore a release. Magazine articles about bands are almost always made in interview form. The "band talking about themselves" part is not meant to rule out interview-based sources. Guidelines are advisory and should be treated with common sense, so whenever you have to "read carefully", you are in fact reading too carefully. Prolog (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, i'm not taking liberty to do any such thing.. It states "releases", a reprint is not a release. and please read carefully, it says that articles "where the band talk about themselves" are not valid. Perhaps it should be you who creates User:Prolog/Liberalsinterpretationsonatheme. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The interviews I listed already meet criterion 1. If you want to list your own rules like "reprints don't count" and "sub-labels of notable labels are not notable", maybe you should create User:Librarianofages/Notability. I'm fairly certain you won't find many editors agreeing with these positions. Prolog (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they do not meet 1. read the list of exclusions, nor 5, reprints don't count. If you're therefore hinging your vote on 6, perhaps we could just create a redirect to Oceans or Rotten sound per WP:MUSIC. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is hard to say what proves a band "undeniably notable", but it is not hard to say that this band meets criteria 1, 5 (Wounded Love Records, Cleopatra Records, two re-issues by Avantgarde Music) and 6 (Rotten Sound, ...and Oceans) of your preferred guideline for notability; WP:MUSIC. Prolog (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it's just me, but I don't think that press releases issued by their American distributor undeniably prove their notability, most entirely trivial which only mention the band. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe that question/answer combination is from any of those sources I presented, so maybe you should stick to the English language sources such as these. Prolog (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Q: What do you think of the current black metal scene? A: Blah, blah, blah, we are great, everything else is unoriginal, worship us! = notable ??? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you consider interviews as "trivial", I wonder what coverage is non-trivial enough for you. And yes, non-English sources are allowed and often used in the English Wikipedia. Prolog (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt if trivial links like that (that aren't even in English!) would suffice. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wounded Love is a label in its own right which is owned by Avantgarde. You can't say that something released on Wounded Love has been released on Avantgarde. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wounded Love = Avantgarde Music. Anyway, the four links above are enough. Prolog (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- neg neither woodcut or wounded love are notable indy labels, def does not meet WP:MUSIC -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per Prolog. There isn't much to add, but I think the sources linked above are indications of some notability. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Prolog's sources are sufficient to establish the band's notability. Chubbles (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:31, 16 January 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.