Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkage


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Also I have chosen create a protected redirect to Dark Ages as a plausible search term. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  13:01, Feb. 2, 2006

Darkage
Was tagged for speedy as nn-band, but I don't think it quite fits as there is a reasonably large discography, so bringing it here instead. Janitorial only, no vote at this point. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * IMPORTANT NOTE: Seven of the keep votes here have been entered unsigned by five anons and this is the only contributions for all five of them. Looks suspiciously like sockpuppetry.  Two of the anons have clearly voted twice.


 * Speedy Delete article asserts the only distribution is two tracks floating around in the music underground. Ruby 16:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep author of preceeding comment appears to have misread article, which actually asserts in discography that five (5) albums have been realeased, rather than just two tracks as suggesed &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.134.172.79 (talk &bull; contribs) 17:26, 27 January 2006.
 * Delete as unverifiable. I could not find any proof of existence of this band beside the linked web site at the bottom of the article, and a search for the band's last album get nothing . It's also quite strange that the article does not mention the members' names, but that would not be a ground for deletion. - Liberatore(T) 16:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep band known in Australian metal underground, and considered seminal. Currently only Wikipedia representative of psychedelic doom style. Current writer possesses three separate original releases, and has sighted three original posters for Australian live performances &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.134.172.79 (talk &bull; contribs) 17:26, 27 January 2006.
 * Strong Delete: I nominated this for speedy. Even the article says they've never released a proper album.  The article practically asserts its own non-notability:
 * ...much of Darkage's recorded canon consists of wholly impovised work, or jam sessions.
 * A limited number of demo tapes and CDs have been released. In addition, a number of rehearsal and jam session recordings exist, but are difficult to obtain
 * The clincher for me, as Liberatore stated, is that there are zero mentions of them anywhere on the internet. I can't even prove that they ever existed.  Meeting WP:BAND seems unreachable after that.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Oh I forgot the beauty of the final line regarding the discography: "The preceding list is probably not exhaustive. The total Darkage corpus is almost certainly larger." I.e., the writer of the article can't even verify anything about them.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong KeepBand certainly exists and has following. This group has been referred to in respectable Australian print media. Article claims band formed 13 years ago, this is an unlikely claim for a vanity article. Also the sited band website is active. Band also Referenced on a few independent music websites. Also lack of information by author does not constitute falsity or informational worthlessness of article. Article should be retained to allow more details to be added or corrections to be made. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.134.135.20 (talk &bull; contribs) 18:42, 27 January 2006.
 * Comment: Put simply, I have found no way to even find if they've recorded a single original song or if they've ever played even at a bar somewhere. If someone can show me where that information exists and the band then appears noteworthy according to WP:BAND, I'll happily change my vote.  I've successfully nominated bands for deletion that have had working home pages (this band's is apparently under construction and shows no info) and even small fan sites and a clear verifiable underground following.  This band appears to have none of those so how can we justify deleting them while not deleting this one?  I have friends and relatives with substantially more verifiability than this band.  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I checked the external webstite mentioned it it doesto contain information, including an active email address. This site claims to be in the process of re-development, not construction. Wiki article also cites this website as an "unofficial Website" suggesting that this site has been built by people outside the band, and that it does probably have a cult/fan following. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.50.36.15 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * Keep the following quotations that were sited above in defense of the delete claim seem to reflect the predudice of author and do not materially support their non-notability argument:
 * ...much of Darkage's recorded canon consists of wholly impovised work, or jam sessions.

This same argument could be made for hundreds of important artists from Miles Davis to Hawkwind to Hendrix. Most Jazz musicicians would have bios removed from Wikipedia if this method of performance was used ans an index of non-notability
 * A limited number of demo tapes and CDs have been released. In addition, a number of rehearsal and jam session recordings exist, but are difficult to obtain

This quote merely states that with any active recording musical group today, demos and CD's have been released, and that, as would be expected "rehearsal and jam session" recordings exist but are "difficult to obtain". This merely hints at the collectabilty of these recordings which the author probably should have described as "bootlegs" for clarity. Rarity of material, or limited pressings once again have nothing to do with supporting a claim for non-notability" in themselves, as even the Beatles, for example, could fit the above criterea. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.134.135.20 (talk &bull; contribs) 18:42, 27 January 2006.
 * The prejudice you refer to is based on the fact that there's no mention of any legitimate full-length releases. Therefore, the references to "rehearsal and jam session" recordings sound like a poor attempt at asserting notability.  As you said, every artist has rehearsal and jam session recordings - only you never hear about them because their legitimate work makes that unnecessary.  If you removed the rehearsal and jam session recordings from this article - since they're not present for other musicians - you'd have almost nothing.  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn-band Zzzzz 19:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * KeepWhat does the above author mean by "legitimate"? The use of this term is unclarified. There is no evidence in the article in question that suggests that the band's canon is either released illegaly, or that it is performed and recorded by a group other thatn themselves. These would be the only senses in which "illegitimate" could make any sense. Furthermore, this author seems to show evidence of some ignorance regarding the nature of bootleg recordings. These are in fact, HIGHLY collectable, revealing the artists in a "purer" and not "over-produced" form. Official releases do not diminish their collectability; in fact widespread commercial success and can often enhance public desire to obtain these recordings. It is suggested that the above author utilise the search function in a music related peer-to-peer network to research this phenomenon for him or herself. Finally, an article writer that was engaging in a "poor attempt" to assert verifibility would surely not mention these kinds of recordings - as is evidenced by the above commenter's reaction and attitude towards them. I presume the original writer included them because of their value to fans of the band and bootleg collectors. FInally, as mentioned above, this band seems to be a rare representative of a style of music that would be largely or wholly lost by Wikipedia if the article in question was prematurely deleted. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.50.36.15 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * IMPORTANT NOTE: Two anons on this Afd have each voted Keep twice! And it's both of their only contributions to Wikipedia so it may just be the same guy with FOUR keeps?  Just so everyone is aware. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Looks fine, band appears on external sites and in printed material. Also Google searches can be problematic due to conflation with a popular computer game of same name and frequent mispelling of the groups name (eg. by spelling as two words rather than one) &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.50.249.158 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * Delete per nom and due to sockpuppetry. Stifle 18:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete having looked around it does appear that they have "a following" (as most bands do, however minor), but I can't find evidence of them meeting WP:NMG which means that many claims about them are functionally unverifiable. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] AfD? 19:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, as they seem to be unsigned, are not listed on either [www.doom-metal.com] or [www.metal-archives.com] (and bands that have been listed on those sites have been deleted before!), and despite being a doom metal fan, I never heard of this band. They were mentioned in a previous incarnation of the article on doom metal three times, and the three mentions were all contributed by the same guy who initially wrote the article on Darkage. Looks like vanity to me. Someone here claimed that they were cited on websites and in print press, but such a claim should at least be backed up with references... Moreover, the claim 'only Wikipedia representative of psychedelic doom style' by one of the anons here is nonsense: Electric Wizard are a well-known band (by doom metal standards, at least) playing this style. Joost 11:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Keep - above comment re: Electric Wizard is NOT factual; a perusal of this band's article will reveal that the term "psychedelic doom" is not used once, and furthermore that the even more general designation of "psychedelic" does NOT appear at all on the page. An examination of Wikipedia indicates that "psychedelic doom" is essentially associated with Darkage. A general check on the internet (with sensible search keywords) will predominantly direct browsers to this band. Users who are ignorant about the history and current state of Heavy Metal, and of music in general, will obviously tend to fail to use appropriate keywords when ustilising search engines to validate this (and similar) articles on Wikipedia.    &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.134.135.11 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * Strong Keep As stated frequently above (even by those voting to delete) this band has a following, especially in Australia / New Zealand. Perhaps the influence of this band is somewhat regional, but it would be inappropriate to judge the value of Wikipedia articles with a pro USA / European bias - this is surely against the universal ethos of Wikipedia. I personaly doubt that the article in question would be attracting as much pro-delete commentary if the artists in question were American; Print media is obviously more difficult to obtain and reference in isolated and lower population regions such as Australia. (The USA has approximatly 1000% the population of Australia for example, and New zealand is even samller). It seems unfair and discriminatory that users in smaller countries are deprived of information that is important to them, and that therefore, by extension, ought to be seen as valuable by the wider global community. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.134.135.11 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * Delete votes becomes strong delete with the presence of so many puppets. Looks like Sesame Street in here. Band is non-notable. Ifnord 14:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * IMPORTANT NOTE: Seven of the keep votes here have been entered unsigned by five anons and this is the only contributions for all five of them. Looks suspiciously like sockpuppetry.  Two of the anons have clearly voted twice.


 * 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.