Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilocate


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 06:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bilocate

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Basically a promotional flyer compiled primarily by two accounts with obvious professional connections to the band. Aside from some name dropping and brief mentions in minor metal 'zines, this is an unsigned band attempting to use wikipedia to promote their self-published demos. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, they may still not be notable, but the article has shed, mysteriously, a lot of issues that bothered the nominator. ;) Drmies (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your trimming of the fat, but all that's left is gristle. The albums are self-published, there are no sources to corroborate any of the info, and the biggest claim to fame is an appearance on a local radio show. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I wouldn't describe Terrorizer, Decibel or Blabbermouth as "minor metal zines". The article obviously needs to be cleaned up but unsigned or not, the subject clearly passes the first criteria of WP:MUSIC. --Bardin (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would. These are specialist publications catering to a small subset of the music industry. Of them, Terrorizer is the only 'zine with a reputable history, whereas Decibel is a recent publication published by a small independent design firm (a sort of specialized vanity press for promoting homespun journalism), and Blabbermouth, as the title suggests, is an online forum. I do not doubt that Bilocate exists, nor that a few diehard metalheads might have heard of it, but damned if it isn't an obscure go-nowhere band that has garnered nothing but trivial coverage in fringe circles. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ouch. Perhaps you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, or a site by its title. Blabbermouth is not an online forum. It is a news site on heavy metal music. It has been regularly deemed to be both a reliable and reputable source for featured articles on wikipedia. It has been cited as a source in books and other news media publication. Its own news article can be found through a google news search. Decibel magazine has been around for five years now and I fail to see how that is even relevant to this discussion. It is a reputable print magazine, has been the subject of other publications, can easily be found on google news. Vanity press? It is a magazine devoted to extreme metal, not its own self. Homespun journalism? Its editor-in-chief is the author of a book that has been published by Feral House (no relation to Decibel magazine), features an introduction by John Peel, and has been cited by other books in the academia. Seriously, where do you get off slandering other people's businesses? So what if these are specialist publications? You make it sound as if that is somehow a bad thing, as if the only magazines that are reliable or reputable are those that cater to the mainstream market. You made a mistake stating that this band has only received brief mentions in minor metal zines. Terrorizer is practically the definition of a major metal zine. So try to be humble, accept that you made an error and move on. As for your opinion on this band, it has no relevance whatsoever here. Only wikipedia policy does and there's nothing on WP:MUSIC that states an article should be deleted if an editor thinks that the subject is an "obscure go-nowhere band" in "fringe circles". What it does state is that a band is notable enough if it has received multiple, non-trivial coverage in independent and reliable sources. This band clearly meets that criteria with coverage in at least three major sources and numerous other minor ones. Not trivial coverage like a passing or brief mention but substantial enough in the form of interviews, reviews and news reports. --Bardin (talk) 09:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from disagreeing with my opinion of the sources, do you have anything to say about the band? Please link to, or at least describe, these non-trivial mentions. (BTW, I stopped paying attention to your rant somewhere around the Peel namedropping) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think all contributors here should settle down a bit. Bardin, I think you make a good point, and it'd be better if you would just say it and leave some of your other commentary out; Anetode, Decibel really has more going for it than you suggest, and it'd be good if you acknowledged that (and namedropping is the name of the game called WP:RS). We're all on the same team. Now, having said that, I'm perfectly willing to accept Decibel, but if they discuss the band on their blog only, then that really isn't much of a reference; moreover, it's not so good that we have to get to what Decibel said in a second- or third-hand way. Blabbermouth isn't so authoritative to me though it would help in a secondary way; Terrorizer might help clinch it. Where's User:Blackmetalbaz when you need him? Really, I think many of us would be much happier if these references were significant, in-depth and all, even if the notability of some of them is shaky to some editors. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Drmies: John Peel has absolutely jack shit to do with the band. Throwing out random industry names in the above fashion is nothing but a game of six degrees of separation. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on, you know better than to think I would think that. Peel has something to do with the authority of the editor of Decibel, which has something to do with the notability of the band. This band, like most subjects at AfD, is on the fringe of notability, so you look wherever you can ('you' being Bardin, of course). And he's got something of a point, since you deny the RS-ness of Decibel--and again, I agree with him on the status of Decibel though I still don't believe the reference amounts to significant in-depth coverage (I'm not impressed by an appearance in a demo column). I just want both of you to play nice. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Anetode, are you trying to start a flame war or something? I do not think you are an idiot so you should know perfectly well why I mentioned John Peel. All I was trying to do was correct your erroneous descriptions of Blabbermouth and Decibel. Please take a step back and look hard at your behavior here, from slandering other people's reputable businesses as homespun journalism and vanity press to describing my explanation as a rant and insinuating that I'm trying to play a game of six degrees of separation. Stop looking at everything here with hostile eyes, okay? Chill out. --Bardin (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Bardin, I looked through the contents of all of 2008's Decibels on their website, and found no mention of them. Do you know when they were reviewed/featured? Drmies (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)\\
 * From the Invisible Oranges link it sounds like they appear in the demo column. Artw (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "I've been doing Decibel's demo column ("Throw Me a Frickin' Bone!") for a little while now. The only prerequisite for inclusion (other than being "metal enough") is being unsigned." - That one blog with the invisible oranges *ahem* ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Right--thanks to both. I wish we had a direct link to Decibel discussing Bilocate. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Drmies, you can pretty much find all the press the band has received on their own website. They have made it that much more convenient for us. Terrorizer has done a review, an interview and a feature on Middle Eastern bands that included coverage of Bilocate. They have also been interviewed and reviewed in another major metal zine in the form of Metal Hammer. The Blabbermouth review can be found here while news coverage from Blabbermouth includes this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. The Decibel review can be found here in pdf format. Coverage in minor zines includes this, this, this, this, this, etc. Chronicles of Chaos has done a review too. --Bardin (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's great, but I'm trying to stay away from bands' own websites. If I get around to it, I may add a few of those notes (Metal Hammer and Terrorizer) to the article--in a proper template. If such a reference is only made via a hyperlink to a document on the band's website, without the other bibliographic information, it looks, well, not so good. I still think that Blabbermouth does not establish notability, though it might help if such notability is already established. I wish Terrorizer would be more available online! Drmies (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm, all those material are third party, independent sources. There's no wikipedia policy against using them. You do not need to link to any website, let alone the band's site. All you need to do is cite the magazine title, the issue number, page, author, etc. --Bardin (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm? I know how to do this, thanks--but I'm not going to state things as facts that I don't know are facts, or include references I haven't seen. Check the history of Bilocate: I've actually worked on this; this sort of work takes some time and effort. You could have brought those references into the article also. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The last time I worked on an article while it was being nominated for deletion, I ended up wasting hours because it eventually got deleted anyway. As for your other comments, I'm confused. References you haven't seen? That's what the links I provided are for. So that they can be seen. I wouldn't think it makes a difference whether you hold the actual magazine in your hand or if you view a scan of the relevant page from a website. --Bardin (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) Metal Hammer and Terrorizer have been added to the article; the links are to the PDFs on the band's website. Anetode, does that help? Drmies (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to help these guys out a little, and found one article that mentions how one of their concerts was shut down for unspecified security reasons but I can't get to the article. It's part of a series by a Dubai newspaper, "Young in the Muslim World," here. But for some reason I can't get the actual text for the story "Lost in adolescent limbo," and what I did find of the article is incomplete--the story is much longer than that. Any WWW-wizards around who know how to dig this article up? It's an interesting read, no matter whether Bilocate stays or not. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have received a PDF from the editor of that newspaper; he says there's a technical glitch that disallowed the article from showing up online. I hope they get to fix that. In the meantime, I have added the note (with reference) to the article, and I have the PDF to prove it. ;) Drmies (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, Keep. The article now has some references that in my opinion offer enough independent coverage in reliable sources for passing WP:N. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep sources seem sufficient. Artw (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.