Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demon Queen


 * 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. This is a messy discussion, numerically split 3-4 for delete-vs redirect and 2-2 on the redirect target. THe argument to redirect would normally be strong, given WP:ATD, but in the absence of a good target, is rendered virtually null. There is a clear absence of consensus about the target; the two !votes favoring redirecting to one of the band members are nullified, in my view, by the argument that when two members exist, redirecting to one of them isn't appropriate. The argument to redirect to the album is weakened by questions about whether the album is notable at all. There is clear consensus that a standalone article isn't viable, and the most direct way to implement that is deletion, which I'm enacting. If the article about the album survives the AfD it is probably being sent to, it will likely be reasonable to redirect this there. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Demon Queen

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Prev. deleted, clearly fails GNG & NMUSIC, cited sources unreliable except for a single NYTimes citation that is not even about Demon Queen but Black Moth Super Rainbow, and it's passing mention in one sentence about style of music. deleted unrelated material Atsme 💬 📧 20:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC) The albums are self-released labels, basically FB, YT style garage-band recordings. This article was created by User:Goldborg (64 edits), and I suspect a COI is involved or possibly UPE, and that includes the related articles in the suggested redirects: Tobacco (musician) was created by who has 6 edits, it was expanded but even then, the cited sources do not pass RS to support N/GNG. Black Moth Super Rainbow (created by (7 edits) and it is not notable beyond 1 or 2 sources with passing mention used to describe this type of music by a very small cult following; thus, the self-promotion. It is G11 but not an obvious one, so here we are, and I'm thinking if the closer is of the mind to also delete the related self-promotion articles being suggested for the redirect of this article, they have my support. It's a self-released label, self-promoting garage band, duo, and music producer striving for attention with a very small cult following...maybe 2,000.  Atsme  💬 📧 16:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music.  Atsme  💬 📧 20:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment found this, unsure if it's the same person . If yes, I'd !keep. Otherwise, !delete for lack of sources.Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha! Not the one. This article is a little above a garage-band.  Atsme 💬 📧 01:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Tobacco (musician) as one of his several side projects. His main article already says that he briefly collaborated with another guy in the Demon Queen project, and that's all there is to know about that endeavor. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 13:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I did consider a redirect but it is inappropriate because Zachary Hose is the other half of the duo that comprises Demon Queen. We need to avoid the habit of redirecting non-notables to a single article, especially if the target article has questionable notability, because what we are doing in essence is allowing WP to be used for promotion via redirects of these little garage band-type projects, and non-notable niches in the world.  Atsme 💬 📧 13:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not a huge fan of that process either, but Wikipedia usually favors the alternatives to deletion option. If someone in the future searches for "Demon Queen" they can be redirected to Tobacco, which reduces the temptation to create a new Demon Queen article that would have to go through another AfD discussion. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on my years of experience as an NPP reviewer, redirects are too easily reverted, hijacked, and misused. We currently have 4,885 redirects in the NPP queue, and that number is down from over 8,000 which is typical.  An AfD is far more dependable, and much harder for garbage and non-notable articles to be recreated in main space. I do hope you will re-consider.  Atsme  💬 📧 14:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I have also been through this hundreds of times over several years and usually just vote to delete something like this, but then I get overruled by someone who cares more about WP:ATD and how the search term might be used in the future and how we have to save edit histories for proper attribution blah blah blah. See the pointless arguments I got into here and here for example. So this time I recommended to redirect and got pushback in the other direction. This illustrates the conflict between different WP procedures, and I have highlighted that conflict many times before, all to no avail. The community needs to figure this out. I did not come to this AfD for yet another argument so I don't really care what happens to this useless article on Demon Queen, as long as it's something. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 15:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel your pain, and I hate being the one who added to it; it was not my intent. I'm here now because the article was created by a block evader and deleted. Now the article is back 2 years later, and here we are; at least we had a 2 yr break. I hope one day you will forgive me.  Atsme 💬 📧 17:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I forgive you but I do not forgive the WP community for giving us two directly contradictory attitudes on deleting or redirecting unworthy articles. And both are based on policy. Back to Demon Queen, they absolutely do not deserve a WP article, and the worst thing that can happen here is a useless "no consensus" because the community can't figure out the contradiction. I've seen it happen many times. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you upgrade to delete, we stand a much better chance of it being deleted. That guy has gotten enough publicity on WP. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 14:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Address the community's contradictory policies, not me. --- <b style="color:#C71585"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, there would be no purpose to AfD if we keep redirecting everything that is not notable to something similar or somewhat related. We can redirect non-notable inventions to the article INVENTION or what the subject closely resembles, such as a newly developed cell phone on the market by a brand new manufacturer – it's not notable but we'll just redirect it to Apple iPhone because it uses some of the same parts. A redirect is not policy, it is a guideline, and it is not contradictory if you are properly interpreting what it prescribes. Tobacco is a single person, and Demon Queen is a non-notable duo. See #5 Note in Notability: Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability.  Also WP:CONTN: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable.  Sorry, but the duo (e.g. the subject) is neither covered by independent RS, nor is it notable. There is also: No inherited notability – Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it.  All of the aforementioned applies to the duo. This article is not about a song/album Tobacco produced as a solo, and even if it was, the song/album is NOT NOTABLE.  The DUO fails NOTABILITY/GNG. A redirect is inappropriate because nothing in that article is notable, and because it is a DUO; we should not redirect a standalone duo to a single person because you are giving indirect credibility to the non-notable duo via inherited notability, the latter of which is noncompliant.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 15:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: It looks just about even between delete and redirect Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero  Parlez Moi 12:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clearly not notable and a redirect does not aid the Wikipedia project in this case. Interesting discussion above which raises some important meta questions, but I oppose redirect here because per WP:RFD 1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tobacco (musician) (would also support a delete if that's more popular), though I'd like to note that Tiny Mix Tapes, Exclaim!, and PopMatters all have entries at WP:RSMUSIC and would be reliable coverage for an album article if someone wants to make one, in which case I'd prefer a redirect to there. QuietHere (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Tobacco (musician) Bruxton (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Changing vote to redirect to Exorcise Tape which I've just made. QuietHere (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * do you consider Exorcise Tape to be notable considering it is a self-published label, and has the following ranking on the charts:
 * Award Top albums of 2013 (2,489th)
 * Award Top albums of the 2010s (25,519th)
 * Award Best albums of all time (90,703rd)
 * It appears to me the whole lot needs to be deleted including Tobacco (musician), and Black Moth Super Rainbow because it comprises what is obviously a fringy self-promoted non-notable musician who knew how to use the internet to self-promote, (not unlike selling self-published books). Maybe I'm holding my mouth wrong, but I'm not finding anything notable about Black Moth Super Rainbow that satisfies N or GNG or SNG – none of it. Seriously, it even fails WP:10YT, and the cited sources clearly do not satisfy RS, except for maybe one or two paid promotions disguised as articles. Even then, it is about nothing - not worthy of being noted. This whole self-promotional mess and related articles suggested for the redirect should all be deleted. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 16:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NMUSIC, "an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline" (and that's assuming you're right about any of the other articles being non-notable which I wouldn't automatically assume). Article easily passes WP:SIGCOV which is the actual relevant measure of notability on this website, unlike this Best Ever Albums website you're linking which I don't think I've ever heard of before. And being a self-released project does not negate notability, WP:SELFPUB is for sources not for subjects. Are you gonna try and claim that a self-published album like The Big Day or Wasteland are non-notable as well? QuietHere (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no need to assume anything – it is WP:NOT garage band; there were 712 pageviews since 2021 and most of those are BOTs and WP editors trying to fix it. I have 3x that many pageviews on my UTP in a month. It is a vanity self-released label, and surely you know WP's position about that, and what is required in the way of RS.  I invite you to consider WP:NPPSCHOOL to get a better handle on what is notable and worthy of inclusion. You know, sometimes even the coverage doesn't make it notable for inclusion. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 17:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * SMH Lament - And now we have two questionable articles. If the album is notable then the band probably is too, or not, who the heck knows. I hereby predict that an Admin will toss this off as "no consensus" without addressing a single one of the policy challenges raised above, thus making this whole rigamarole even more pointless than it was two weeks ago. Way to go, Wikipedia. --- <b style="color:#C71585"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 17:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * SMirC-facepalm.svg Extremely frustrating, but I still have faith in some of our admins/closers to make the proper decision based on the arguments, not the voting or suggestions. I think most of the time, our admins are as snowed under as NPP reviewers and don't want to get bogged down, so they may do a quick scan without little research. I try to teach my trainees in NPPSCHOOL to not rush through a decision of notability and to cover all the bases. One such situation is Barbara Dawson that ended-up at DRV. I have always done my best to save articles that are worthy of being saved, and try not to waste too much valuable time on garage bands and sports figures that only need to show-up to earn a blue ribbon. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 18:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would at least throw in an argument for whichever admin comes to close this that there's a strong case against redirecting to one member of the duo, a strong case for redirecting to their album, and the redirect votes (despite naming different targets) outnumber the delete votes three to one (or two if Atsme's nomination counts as a vote). Especially if DOOMSDAYER520 and Bruxton would be willing to change the redirect target of their votes then I think that should stand fine for a consensus. QuietHere (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * doomsdayer520, we do the best we can. But just like there aren't enough editors on the project who participate in the AFD area, there aren't enough admins willing to spend time going through the more challenging AFD discussions. What seems obvious to you may not appear that way to the discussion closer. And when BOLD action is taken, you can find yourself taken to Deletion review and be accused of "Supervoting" by the parties that are unhappy with the closure. That is such an unpleasant experience that it tends to make AFD closers more conservative. I don't think any editor or admin enjoys their editing decisions under intense scrutiny even when you are very confident you made the best decision among the possible alternatives. But I don't expect this discussion to be closed as "No consensus". Just my 2 cents. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:04, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A whole bunch of people are telling me to reconsider my vote, as if everybody after me made more sense. I envisioned a conflict among contradictory policies and that's exactly what we got. The thing is, this is not even close to the first time this sort of thing has happened. Others can be found easily, and I linked a couple back near the top of this wall of text. If someone has the wherewithal to address the contradictory policies at a higher level, I will contribute to that discussion. --- <b style="color:#C71585"> DOOMSDAYER 520</b> (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 13:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * comment Thanks Liz, it is good to hear your perspective. Regarding QuietHere's assessment of consensus, I would just add that (1) of course the Nom.'s !vote is understood, and (2) the fact that multiple redirects are proposed is, to my mind, evidence that no redirect should be used. If there is consensus that a particular redirect is appropriate, then that is fair enough because redirects are cheap, but the purpose of a redirect is to signpost future readers to the content they want. A redirect, however, takes precedence over site search, and so per WP:RFD 1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. It is not just the multiple targets either. A search for "Demon Queen" might now or in the future throw up hits in pages on fantasy gaming, fiction novels and TV shows. Anyone searching on the phrase might be rather surprised to find themselves taken directly to a page on some obscure garage band instead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * +1 and an excellent point, Sirfurboy. I am keeping that diff for future use in NPPSCHOOL. Thank you. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 10:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A good point indeed, though for the sake of this discussion I will at least say that unless you have specific examples in mind, this reads as speculative and not actually relevant at present. Sure, said articles could come along in the future (assuming they don't exist now, but I did a brief search and didn't see anything that stood out), but if they're not here now then the result of this discussion doesn't need to reflect articles that don't exist. And if/when they come to exist in the future, perhaps converting this page to a dab and/or moving the redirect to Demon Queen (band) would be appropriate.
 * And I'll also reiterate the arguments against/for those two targets as a reason why both proposals existing should not be taken as evidence against any redirecting. If you have a more specific objection to either potential target then that'd be more helpful here than a general dismissal. QuietHere (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, , , just for starters. I make no representations about the quality of any of those pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Three of those fall under WP:PARTIAL. Rangda only uses the term once in prose, and not as a proper noun, so the connection feels a bit too thin. And for Maoyu, the term's usage is referring to a specific character rather than the work itself so I think a hatnote saying "For the Maoyu character, see Maoyu" would be the most appropriate. QuietHere (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Exorcise Tape. As QuietHere has stated, it is possible to have a notable album when the band is not notable. It makes no sense to redirect to one performer in a band when the member's article does not have a section dedicated to the music project. There are many examples of albums that are notable when the band is not (Forest Floor, In the Groove and Witch Egg to name a few), so let the album article stand and bring the band back to the article strong enough to stand on it's own instead of off on a tangent. Mburrell (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.