Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velvet Acid Christ

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. Nja²⁴⁷ 10:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Acid Christ[edit]

This article does not appear to meeet Wikipedia standards for music notability as described in WP:MUSIC. A proposed deletion tag was removed by a user who argued that they know of and like the band and thus it should not be deleted; however this in no way addresses the notability concern. This article's sources consist primarily of links to the band's webpage and fan pages. Drelusis (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are individual album pages, none of which seem to meet notability guidelines. If the vote is to keep the main article, these should each be merged into the main page as they are generally only track listings:

To add the text I put on the article's talk page as a response to the user who removed the prod tag:

Notability standard #1 for musical acts is the only one that would seem to offer any possibility for this band. However, this page consists primarily of material sourced from the band's own pages. The only two external sources are 1) "Last Sigh Magazine," which seems to be online only, and whose reviews page was last updated in 2000 and interviews page, in 2001, and 2) "Sonic Boom," another online-only source that published e-mail interviews from 1995 to 1998. I believe neither of these sources qualify as "reliable" according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources or non-trivial, and may qualify as self-published sources. Unless reliable, non-trivial sources of coverage can be accessed, that would leave this band without a notability leg to stand on as far as I can tell. If the article is not deleted, it needs a major re-write as eliminating all information from the band's own website would essentially leave it without content.Drelusis (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Have you tried searching for the subject using a search engine?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see no reason why they do not meet notability standard #5. They have released material on Metropolis Records, who certainly have a roster of notable bands. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 10:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Easily passes WP:MUSIC with multiple albums on Metropolis. To be honest, whilst I'd heard of the band, I had no idea how big they appear to be. A Google Books search reveals lots of hits. The article clearly needs work, but it doesn't look like sources will be hard to come by. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. A notable band that easily passes the "heard of them before reading a Wikipedia article" test. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed - Google News (e.g. this) and Google Books searches strongly indicate notability. Some of the coverage is in languages other than English but as far as I can tell plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources exists, not least this Allmusic bio and two reviews ([1], [2]), and some of these may also be acceptable sources: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].--Michig (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Allmusic bio and other sources given by Michig demonstrate that WP:MUSIC is met. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 20:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep as they clearly meet #5. Not sure what's going on here. I've also declined the {{prod}} that the nominator has put on Bryan Erickson (musician). – iride scent 01:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment most of Michig's sources appear to be blurbs from music blogs, I would prefer to see more from bigger magazines and newspapers and such. I don't really consider Allmusic to be a good source of notability, as they have pretty much anything. --AW (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding – it's not that a mention in Allmusic demonstrates notability, but that it demonstrates that they have the "two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" which means automatic notability in Wikipedia per WP:MUSIC #5. – iride scent 15:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On these sources: Neither side-line, Re:Gen, nor inmusicwetrust are blogs - all three sites have a staff as listed on those sites - whether all are acceptable as reliable sources is debatable. Release magazine is a web magazine that previously also appeared in a print version [10]. Allmusic, contrary to what many believe, does not have coverage of every band in existence - many bands have nothing there whatsoever, and plenty of notable bands have nothing more than an index entry with no bio or reviews. A band that has a substantial bio and two substantial reviews at Allmusic is going to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article.--Michig (talk) 15:56, 4 June 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.