Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantom Warior


 * 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 per article's generally much improved sourcing. Nice work Schlehub! Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fantom Warior

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

Band that fails to meet WP:MUSIC. All coverage seems to be limited to myspace, bloggs, forums, and metalarchive-esque websites. . No secondary independent sources. Reference section is also questionable and spotty.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Schlehub (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   --  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   --  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 02:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Only sources are primary or unreliable. Nothing in the article asserts notability per WP:MUSIC. Makes a couple vague claims which put it just this side of an A7. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:Music criteria 2-12 won't be met; 6 perhaps someday, some ex band members are still going strong but haven't hit the big-time. Criteria 1 would be the only possibility then. The difficulty with finding references for Fantom Warior is that since the band was around only during the 1980s, the articles do not exist in electronic form on the internet. I'm not sure if every reference on wikipedia needs to be a link to something on the web; if it's not a link then that probably raises the verifiability issue. I have photo copies of magazines that they appeared in, some were major metal magazines from various countries and others are minor local fanzine publications. I have articles from 15 magazines, some of which were quite popular in the 1980s thrash circles but probably don't exist today; (e.g. Metal Forces Magazine - October 1986, No 20, England; Blackthorn Magazine - 1986, No 4, Denmark; Shock Power Magazine - No 11, Germany; Ardschok America - November 1986, USA) Did find a stub for Metal Forces in wiki. I could just list those as references without links but again not verifiable without the actual magazine article. Not sure if I can actually post those articles to wiki's database without some sort of copyright infringement. I suppose the question is whether those articles are considered "non-trivial". Schlehub (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, references to paper sources are perfectly fine. Zagalejo^^^ 04:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. If they are properly formatted and placed in the article, I will withdraw this nomination.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 04:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll have to include more "paper" source references then. I've included a couple of references currently [3], [4], [5] that link to scanned in copies of the articles.  I'm not that familiar with the copyright issues to know whether I can link to those copies of the articles.  I also don't know if I can submit them to the wiki databases and reference them from there.  Any help in the form of what I legally can do with images of these paper articles (be nice now) would be appreciated.  I've read some of the copyright info on wiki but I'm not sure I understand most of it.  I'll at least work on getting the formatting of the "paper" references correct and then perhaps with some direction I can sort out what I can do with links to such articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schlehub (talk • contribs) 04:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. With the addition of print sources, even if only in fanzines, I think this band just barely squeaks past WP:MUSIC. It's difficult to verify, of course, since these are print-only fanzines. I would myself be inclined to place this as something akin to subpoint 3 under criterion 1: "An article in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis." They seem to have coverage from 7 different print fanzines from 6 different countries. The article does need clean-up, particularly the references which cite to other Wikipedia articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep due to the sources. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  19:35, 25 March 2008 (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.