Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Død Beverte (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The consensus is that the sources do not meet the independent/reliable criteria expected of sources. There is also a consensus that insufficient evidedence exists to show that WP:BAND is met.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Død Beverte
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Recreation of article deleted at afd (21 Aug 11) with only superficial changes. Only real change has been to add a long laundry list of so called playlists. Despite the url suggesting otherwise they are not playlists. they are also not independent coverage. They are just an indication someone is trying to use the internet for promotion, as someone here is trying to do with wikipedia but Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Album not on important label. Calling nine inch nails an associated act is laughable attempt to assert importance and doesn't help as notability is not inherited. He still lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Of the other multitude of references they are either trivial coverage (like the allmusic listing), are primary sources or press releases, are not significant coverage or are not reliable sources. See previous afd for more on sources. Nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I was very disappointed to see that there was no consensus for deletion of Dethcentrik due to one editor not looking closely at the sources referenced. In particular there are a lot of sites which allow user submitted content and these can be used on wikipedia to stack a bunch of superficial references to add legitimacy to the topic. The same thing has certainly been done here. It is a clue when you see 15 references in the same place that someone is stacking in order to make up for the subject's general lack of notability. The article does not actually establish notability. I will note that it has been deleted before for this exact same reason. It is common for small-time uknown garage bands to create a wikipedia page for themselves in order to promote the band and give themselves a certain notoriety. This is just such an attempt at promotion, only with more meaningless references. Regardless of motives which cannot themselves constitute a viable reason for deletion, the article does not pass WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Not notable. see Masking the lack of notability, Wikipuffery and especially Bombardment. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has added quite a few new sources since deletion. I encourage the person making the final decision to keep or delete to review the actual changes since deletion rather than simply taking other editors' word for it. And as for the unimportant label comment, I would like the closing editor to research the definition of a major label, then see this. I would also encourage the closing editor to look at the sources cited for themselves, and to please look at the tone, insertion of opinions, and any statements of insulting nature the other editors are relying on. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if we pretend IODA is a major label and is the label that released Beverte's album it is still only one album, less than the two asked for by wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This article cites reviews, interviews, and yes some press releases, but they are not the majority by any means, and I see no bias at all that would indicate that this article in created for promotion. I would also like to point out WP:NOTINHERITED does state an exception for books, films, and music. The different playlists are on the sites of separate radio stations, and I see no way the urls indicate that they aren't playlists, although it does look like they are from the same supplier, but many radio stations are owned by the same company, and many often have music supplied from the same source, saying they are the same is like saying all reviews are the same since at some point down the line they likely obtained the music from the same source, since the artist is at some point the source of their own music, and their label distributes it. Taking into account the tone of some of the editors that favor the article's deletion, I would question wether this deletion discussion was created in good faith, and whether those same editors should be considered conflicts of interest -97.112.152.209 (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * re not inherited, Beverte is not a book, film or musical recording. re playlists, play lists have what was played listed, not the case here. re coi, what outside interest do you think I am advancing? More importantly on good faith and coi, this afd is about wether Beverte should have an article, it's not about me, read WP:ATTP. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The references which are represented in the article as radio playlists, they are not playlists, not only fail to establish any notability whatsoever, but they are yet more user-submitted content and therefore not reliable, though reliablity isn't much of an issue since the pages referenced don't have any content to speak of. I can submit my "band" via the same form and my band name will show up on dozens of identical websites with different radio call letters at the top. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Question for Dufbeerforme and Gene93K: Sources 8,9, 10, and 11 were not present on the article when it was deleted. My understanding is that some online metal magazines qualify as reliable sources, while others do not. Are you saying that none of these qualify as WP:RS?  Or that they aren't independent? Or that they don't discuss the subject in detail?  Because if any of those are reliable, they seem to be enough to meet WP:GNG.  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Number 8 was directly addressed by Metal lunchbox in the first afd, it was ref number 10 in the stable version linked to. 9 is not a reliable source, see their about us, not a "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". 10 and 11 are primary sources, they are "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves", one of the things are not considered "reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" according to wp:music. both are also a blogs, not reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Deleting editor please note that in this debate editors asking for this article's deletion are using acceptance of submission of music itself and news tips as justification for calling a source "user-submitted." One editor involved in this debate also did notify another editor whose first contribution to this article was an attempt at speedy deletion of this afd, and one editor involved has since deleted many sources, please do check the list of changes to see which sources were deleted during the course of this afd, and gauge their reliability for yourself. Certain statements are also misleading "is not a book, film or musical recording" in WP:NOTINHERITED I do not see the word "recording" anywhere, simply music. BusyWikipedian (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did indeed remove several references from the article which I explained in full in the edit comments. If you wish to challenge those edits you should do so on that articles talk page an not use my edits as a way to imply some malicious intent or a violation of common procedure. The references were removed because they were unreliable, redundant, and did not provide any content relevant to the article. references are for verifying information found in the article and to provide the reader with a place to explore further information on the topic. The more than a dozen webpages cited after the name of one album did not aid in this effort in the slightest. But then, anyone can look at the edit history and see this very clearly for themselves. I was notified of this discussion on my talk page because I was one of very few people that has been involved with this article. That is standard procedure. As for "user-submitted" content, I will point out that content on a website which is submitted by users as opposed to credentialed editorial staff, is typically not considered a reliable source of information. Please see WP:SPS and look at the sources for yourselves. There should be no question that the sources I have removed do not pass WP:RS. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * RE: exceptions to "Notability is not inherited." BusyWikipedian, You are misreading the guidelines. The exception referred to above is in WP:MUSIC and reads as follows:
 * "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles."
 * The subject of this article unquestionably does not meet that criteria. Otherwise, notability is not inherited. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Having gone over the sources, which ones are anyone claiming are (a) reliable, (b) independent, (c) non-user-submitted and (d) discuss the subject in significant detail?  Ravenswing  10:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject is covered in plenty of reliable, third party sources, including being reviewed which is indisputably a third party opinion and the IODA, which is a distribution outlet for many indie labels is owned by Sony Music. Granted, I would say this article needs to be written far better, and certainly it would not hurt to cite more reliable independent sources, but for those simply tagging what needs to be fixed at the top of the page will suffice. As for the playlists that were deleted during changes to this page during the time period of this AfD (I'm including the first arguments at the top of this page as the beginning of the debate) I do believe them to be credible, but since they appear to be from the same source, finding that source and simply citing that instead seems much wiser than citing all of them.164.47.161.254 (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That IODA is partly owned by SONY does not make any Beverte recording a major-label release. The issue is not improving the sources，because those other sources do not appear to exist. In the future the subject may become notable and receive in-depth coverage by notable, independent, third-party sources. At that time maybe we can consider the subject notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. again, a brief reading of WP:BAND and WP:RS would answer any questions about whether or not the subject may be considered notable with a definitive no. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And which do you think are reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of Beverte? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to simply point out that WP:BAND states that for those outside "mass-media traditions" "is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable subculture." He is covered frequently in publications devoted to the heavy metal subculture. I myself would qualify his interview with HeavyHardMetalMania as reliable. The IODA is not only "partially" owned by Sony, it is fully owned by Sony, I refer you to the multiple sources cited on both the IODA Wikipedia page, and the Sony Music Wikipedia page, rather than list all the sources in this AfD. And seeing as he is the main composer of Dethcentrik link, I would say he fits the requirement for composers in addition to individual notability. BusyWikipedian (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Heavy Metal is in the "mass-media traditions". The album was not released by IODA. What Dethcentrik song is notable? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * RE: IODA - regardless of what portion of IODA is owned by SONY music, its missing the point to claim that using IODA to distribute your music on the internet makes it a "major-label release". IODA is not, in fact a proper record label in the way that SONY Music of Cash Money records is, they are more like Jamendo, they have a website that allows unsigned artists and anyone with a digital audio recorder to distribute their music online. Even if it were Sony music themselves signing Beverte, WP:BAND requires two (2) major-label releases to establish notability in this fashion. Also HeavyHardMetalMania is definitely not a reliable source, see WP:BLOGS. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been open for 18 days, and was already closed once 10 days ago.BusyWikipedian (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been re-included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions after being dropped off. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete failing WP:NMUSIC, WP:BLP and WP:GNG. This page isn't about a band; it's about a living person, and the threshold for BLPs should normally be higher than album discussion and track listings on Billboard and Allmusic. Each source fails WP:IRS either because it's a blog or because it fails to directly detail the artist. No sources which meet the standard for sourcing on a BLP. No interviews, no profiles. (on edit, The Gauntlet does produce a brief interview, and based on its own page information does appear to be more than a blog but less than a RS as described by policy and guideline). BusterD (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As to whether this changes your vote or not BusterD, I would like to mention that a multitude of sources were deleted in bad faith during the course of this AfD, including, but not limited to: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4802015/bio, http://www.heavyhardmetalmania.net/2011/11/dd-beverte-uncensored-interview.html , , http://remix.nin.com/play/mix?id=24150, http://darkdoomgrinddeath.blogspot.com/2011/10/dethcentrik-interview.html, and I am restoring some of them as we speak, and will be editing the article with additional sources as well most likely.BusyWikipedian (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on the page, but I'm not swayed. IMDB isn't usually a RS for BLPs and this one says sourced from "Official Representative" so it fails independence even if. Two of the sources you list are clearly blogs and the nin.com source is merely the artist's work. If this were a band, I'd be slightly more inclined toward a keep outcome, but as a BLP, we have a strong need to protect both the pedia and the subject with WP:IRS. I can't find a single source which meets IRS fully, with the possible exception of the interview linked on The Gauntlet. BusterD (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2012 (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.