Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dethcentrik (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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Article does not establish notability. The links are mostly fake. Its not even clear whether or not the band actually exists. The links that do go somewhere also look like they were planted as part of a hoax with further links leading to random places. Even if they do exist no notability has been established despite the article being tagged for notability and primary sources since 2008. see WP:BAND. This page was deleted before for the same reasons. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I am not aware what makes a link "fake." Some are broken granted (3), but I was able to click them and see there are plenty of opinions given about the band, and plenty of things written about them by a third party: Terrorizer, Metal Breakfast Radio, Deep Six Radio, and One Step Beyond Radio give opinions about the band, and Inside Heavy, and The Gauntlet has articles written about the band as well. Also, I do not see how a band can be "fake" it exists. Bands that exist cannot be listed by All Music, which provides for MTV, AOL Music, Billboard, and many others, and states that they must receive a commercially available CD to list it. Also, the band has not been tagged for notability and sources since 2008, it's been tagged that way since apparently tomorrow, and the page was created on October 15, 2010, so that isn't possible. --BusyWikipedian (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got your facts wrong the page was created a while ago, was deleted and was recently undeleted. As for the refs I suggest you take a much closer look. The MTV.com link gives no commentary whatsoever just a picture and 7 track names. That the band exists is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not they are notable and the article does not establish this. The first 3 links are dead. The links to the Guantlet do not go to articles about Dethcentric. RushPR news is obvously self-published so not useful. Most of these pages linked to are about as good in establishing notability as a Myspace page. Take for instance the "Inside Heavy" article which claims to be about a youtube video. The multiple links to the video just goes to the HeavyMetalFreak.com homepage. The AOl link you give proves my point it has zero information about the band, like so many of the other refs its just a track list. There is no reliable source to establish notability but there is an amazing amount of effort that has been put into creating the appreance of notability. There's no Billboard ref. This is clearly an effort to game the system, in this case for someone to promote their not-notable band. That someone got a few websites to repeat what was printed in a press release is not notability. Metal lunchbox (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Lie: "You've got your facts wrong the page was created a while ago, was deleted and was recently undeleted" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_16#Dethcentrik . Lie: "The links to the Guantlet do not go to articles about Dethcentric" This one: http://www.thegauntlet.com/article/4370/21881/DETHCENTRIK-EP-Tracklisting-Revealed . These were written as well: http://www.thegauntlet.com/article/4370/21953/DETHCENTRIK-Releases-Controversial-New-Video, http://www.thegauntlet.com/article/4370/21850/DETHCENTRIK-Post-New-Track , Inside Heavy also acknowledges syndicating this article: http://www.thegauntlet.com/article/4370/21992/Dethcentrik-Video-Banned-By-Youtube . You are not being honest Honesty. Billboard doees list this artist: http://www.billboard.com/artist/dethcentrik/1622748 BusyWikipedian (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not accuse me of lying. doesn't it seem a little bizarre that someone would make up a bunch of lies so that they could lobby for the deletion of some random wikipedia article. The page is advertisement and it doesn't belong on wikipedia. I have no explanation for the dating on the souce/notability tag. I reported it the way I saw it. I had not seen all the records but had seen that the page had been deleted before. Also you did not provide a billboard ref so I said so after you mentioned it. None of this changes anything. The topic is not notable. 07:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep From clicking the links throughout the page, I can easily tell the links do work. The webpage links that I have clicked express a third-party opinion of the band itself. The infomation given on this Wikipedia webpage are correct and functional. I have found no problems with the article, and found it very useful and infomational. 174.24.56.54 (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC) — 174.24.56.54 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Thankfully these decisions aren't made by counting votes, or they'd be constantly abused. Metal lunchbox (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete no notability shown for this band. albums not on important label. band lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. inclusion on a Terrorizer's sampler cd is not significant coverage. of the other multitude of references they are either trivial coverage (like the mtv listing), are press releases or are not reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Another discussion with me! Wikistalking? BusyWikipedian (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * if you are making an accusation, then you better have some evidence. Someone having been invovled in a discussion with you before does not prohibit them from being involved in this discussion. Metal lunchbox (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If user:duffbeerforme assures me he isn't following me maliciously, I will believe him. This is not your place to argue, you're harassing me as a user yourself with all the back talk. I apologize for whatever I may have done to upset you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusyWikipedian (talk • contribs) 06:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not know you and I am not that interested in you. I'm just trying to maintain wikipedia. Metal lunchbox (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Band includes "inclusion on a notable compilation album." And the write-up qualifies as a third party opinion. The Gauntlet's articles are not press releases, and Wikipedia does have a criteria for cited press releases, and all the cited press releases meet this criteriaBusyWikipedian (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, not stalking you, such a ridiculous accusation (stalking based on participating in one afd) is a personal attack. And when I get round to nominating Sektor 304 for deletion it will still not be stalking. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep the links do work i tryed most of them it. couldnt have been tagged in 2008 because the article was made in 2010. — 174.24.113.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep There is plenty of press on this band, linked (and working) in fact. Many of the sources are very renowned in heavy metal, not to mention as pointed out by User:BusyWikipedian that many of these accusations are false. — 70.48.125.31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 05:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep - plenty of reliable sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Such as? Have a read of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. How many times have people asked you to do so? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Commment - This Article for Deletion discussion cannot be closed by an involved party. Just because a simple vote count gives Keep a majority does not mean that an involved editor can close the discussion themselves. Also, please refrain from making this discussion about the editors involved- Stick to content and policy. Metal lunchbox (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of third party articles, all of which are credible. There is no reason not to keep this, vandalism does need to be reverted, such as improper tag from "2008."174.24.62.44 (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC) — 174.24.62.44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * comment - understand that not all users coming to this discussion are aware of what constitues a reliable secondary source for establishing notability. I will simply point out that user-submitted content is not a reliable source to establish notability. many of the refs cited such at the Gauntlet are just that. "Create an account here, login, and get added to both The Gauntlet and Metal Carnage in minutes." so a band-listing on that website does not establish notability. Metal lunchbox (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When there are articles written by the author of the site they are third party. Your willingness to overlook this proves you aren't tagging this article in good faith. Lies do not help your case. Stick to facts. I have seen numerous lies posted by you, and you are so defensive it's questionable whether you believe others are ever going to side with you. If you want support: don't lie, and don't be abusive to users174.24.62.44 (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "please refrain from making this discussion about the editors involved- Stick to content and policy" Please listen to your own advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.62.44 (talk) 05:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll let the other editors here evaluate for themselves where the reason and truth lay in this discussion. Metal lunchbox (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A note about single-purpose IPs. 174.24.113.33, 184.99.28.61, 174.24.62.44, 174.24.62.44 and 174.24.56.54 are all reqisterd to Qwest Communications Company, LLC, and geolocate to Colorado Springs, Colorado. None of them has made any edits not related to Dethcentrik, and all but one of them has only edited in connection with this AfD and another one on a member of Dethcentrik. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 184.99.28.61 was me, I apologize. It says I'm logged in then posts with this IP, I check all comments by 184.99.28.61, and re-signed them as BusyWikipedian. Feel free to check the other IPs, they aren't me...


 * A note about the conduct of BusyWikipedian in relation to this AfD. After posting here and advocating "keep", BusyWikipedian posted a request to BabbaQ to take part in this AfD that could be viewed as canvassing. A little while after BabbaQ had duly added a "keep" to those of BusyWikipedian and several single purpose IPs, BusyWikipedian then attempted to close this AfD, despite being involved in it, and despite the fact that it had been open for less than 15 hours. BusyWikipedian then proceeded to request page protection for this AfD, without giving any reason. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Some people reading Wikipedia can see an article they have knowledge about and want to share their knowledge. Sometimes said reader may only read one article they feel they have enough knowledge to edit and really needs to be edited. The band is from Colorado Springs, they are best known in the local Colorado Springs area, and Qwest is a large internet provider in the local region. Sometimes when looking up a subject an article appears about it here. Most articles aren't brought up for deletion. So wouldn't it be safe to assume that most people looking up or finding the article would notice the AfD and contribute to it? And is it that far fetched that some people that have only edited Dethcentrik and member related articles in the past simply want to share what they know or have recently seen and read about them? BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not safe to assume that. Anyone can take a look at the language used (ex. "defensive"), the position taken, and the times of the edits and see that this is obvious puppetry to distort the results of an AfD. see WP:DUCK. It is unusual for someone who has never edited wikipedia before to join an AfD, even more unusual for several of them to show up at the same time. I've never been accused of vandalism, lying or harassment before yet all of the sudden you and all of your socks do so using very similar language. Metal lunchbox (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter much whether these editors are all the same user (sock-puppetry), or if they are all fans who were told to come here to "vote" to keep the article (meat puppetry), or even if they are all just fans who don't understand Wikipedia's rules who all happened by chance on the article. The closing admin will not count the number of "voters", because AfD isn't a vote (thus the template I added to the top).  Rather, the closing admin will weigh the quality of the arguments as they relate to our policies and guidelines.  A thousand people could all say "keep", but if none of them can answer the concerns raised by our guidelines, then the article will not be kept.  One thing that might help the closing admin would be a careful evaluation of the sources in the article, clarifying exactly what each of them verifies (like, if all one source verifies is their genre, that's not a very relevant source for evaluating notability) and their quality (i.e., whether or not they meet WP:RS.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The Love at First Grind Compilations turn up many Google hits, most notably a review on Undergrind, I have yet to go through all the results. These may qualify as notable compilations. BusyWikipedian (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am looking up more to add to references. Believe currently listed references are fine: I do not want to be accused of saying something I am not BusyWikipedian (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Undergrind is another site that is not a reliable source and that link does not mention Dethcentrik. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not voting, but just a note to the closing admin. Multiple IP address have voted here that have little or no edits outside of Wikipedia. I'd almost suggest doing a checkuser on those IP's because I can bet that they belong to another editor who has voted on this discussion. The Undead Never Die (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not trying to sound rude, but why are you not voting? You are the second user to comment with no voting, just wondering if there's a reason? I personally would never comment without an opinion, it's a curious thing for me... BusyWikipedian (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, conflict of interest as you stated in the related AfD. Apologies for asking BusyWikipedian (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I do know for a fact. There is no label and all the links were written by the artist himself BusyWikipedian is the Dethcentrik guy and all of his votes came from his IP address! Slayer8899 —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC). — Slayer8899 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment for Slayer8899 You are a new user with less than 100 edits. Only a checkuser can check where an edit is coming from, so how do you know that BusyWikipedian is the artist? The Undead Never Die (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While we are speculating, what if Slayer8899 and BusyWikipedian are the same person. That's a fun idea. let's get back on topic, a closing admin will evaluate the arguments and will, to some extent, take into account sockpuppetry, meat puppetry, and other abuses of the system. A complaint about those abuses is serious and should be filed at WP:ANI not here. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I do know who Slayer8899 is. He asked that I help him fix Elctrikchair's page on Wikipedia to meet standards, and I honestly believed I could. When the page was deleted during it's third nomination I told Andy, as he goes by, that he had failed to mention the page had been deleted three times before. Shortly after he attacked the page Dethcentrik with a multiple issues tag "since 2008." I had made edits and additions for many bands from Colorado to help my cause for Elctrikchair look less one-sided. Dethcentrik was one the article I had made the most total edits to when the member Død Beverte edits I made are included, I think what did intrigue me to edit them was that he told me so many people disliked the band and they were so untalented the name just stuck with me and they were on the Heavy metal musical groups from Colorado list, as was Havok, and he has said something negative about them as well, but to a lesser extent than Dethcentrik. I wanted to add bands, so I also added the band Sektor 304 as a stub because they appeared in source Dethcentrik was in, and I was able to find sources to back every article I edited, generally adding album info. I hadn't looked much at the page for Havok, otherwise I would have seen the page was worded in a promotional way and would have likely re-written it rather than simply adding albums. Admittedly I still believe all edits other than Elctrikchair I have made in good faith, and at the time I was a noobie and I really did think it would be okay so long as I only cited third-party sources.BusyWikipedian (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I can tell based on his actions. hes the only one defending his posts LOL! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayer8899 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no evidence anywhere of notability. Several of the "references" are links to pages that don't even mention Dethcentrik, others are to sources that are not independent, not reliable, barely mention Dethcentrik, or even all three. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

**Note: I have just restored four comments which were removed from this page by an editor using the IP address 68.91.153.146. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * comment I noticed that the comments removed include some personal information about an editor. Editors have a right to not have their personal identities revealed. If that editor wishes to have the material removed they should make a request at Requests for oversight and include a description of the offending content, why they want it removed, and a diff link. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The references in the article do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2011 (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.