Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go Fuck Your Jewish "God"


 * 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 both. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Go Fuck Your Jewish "God"
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Per WP:MUSIC, demo's are in general not notable, unless they meet the general WP:NOTE requirements of course. Prod was contested because "a simple google search turns up thousands of results for this demo". However, a Google search turns up only 108 distinct hits. At first glance, none of these give sufficient info from a reliable source to let the demo meet WP:NOTE. Most are fansites, youtube, lyrics websites, ... Fram (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Also nominated: Puzzlez Ov Flesh (129 instead of 108 distinct Google hits, same reasonin otherwise)


 * Delete both, no sources found, demos aren't usually notable. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Admittedly, this is marginal, but I think it makes the cut. Some of the leading online metal sites have this in their pages: Encyclopaedia Metallum and, LivingForMetal.com , Libarius Metallicus  and Spirit of Metal . It appears this demo did get wide release (which most demo recordings do not). Ecoleetage (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, the author of the articles in question was not notified by the AfD nominator of this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, I never notify any editor of AfD's. I note them for Prod's, which don't get widespread attention and discussion. AfD's should be judged on their own merits, and the author had the chance of improving the article when he removed the ProD. While comments by the author of the article are welcome, they are not needed more or less than anyone else's comments. Fram (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As an admin, you should know better. The AfD template specifically requests that authors be notified that their articles are being discussed for deletion. The article's author should have the right to defend his work, especially if the request for deletion is weak and wobbly. In future, please extend the articles' authors the courtesy of knowing that their work is being threatened with removal. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It lists it as a courtesy. I don't think it is a useful courtesy, and one I disagree with, as has been discussed before on talk pages of deletion policy. The user was given the chance to discuss and improve the article when it was prodded, but choose to remove the prod without any improvements to the article. I have also stated previously that I don't object to a bot doing this job. And since this request for deletion is not "weak and wobbly" but quite clear and well rooted in our policies and guidelines. As somoene who statezs that they perform non-admin closures of AfD's, I had hoped that you had a better grap of those, since closing AfD's involves weighing the strength of arguments wrt policy and guidelines, not the number of votes or the existance of unreliable Googlehits. Fram (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can understand your attempt to change the subject to my non-admin closures and to belittle my "grap" of policy, but that's not what we're talking about. I have put many articles up for AfD and I always alert the articles' original authors to what is taking place -- it takes no more than 30 seconds. The fact remains that you attempted to sneak this AfD in without having the basic respect (not a "useful courtesy") to allowing the article's creator to defend his work.  Your prod on the article was separate and apart from this discussion.  And until such time that a bot comes along to list articles for AfD, please show some respect to your peers when engaging in this process, thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you try to lecture someone on policy, while at the same time defending an article on very shaky grounds, you should not be surprised if your remarks are used against you. You adressed me on an AfD as an admin, so I adressed you as a AfD closing non-admin. Apparently that is not allowable? The article's creator is allowed to defend hiswork, but his opinion was already expressed on the prod, and isn't worth more than those of everyone else. If a subject is appropriate for Wikipedia or not should be obvious from the article after it has been prodded and the prod has been removed. But to get back to the case at hand: I asked you already, but did not get a reply: where is the evidence for your repeatedly stated assertion that this demo has gotten a wide release? Fram (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, considering that as someone who performs NAC, I can only close to Keep, and even then I would do it when it is 100% clear that the article's meet policy and there is unanimous consensus by a strong number of editors. I have yet to perform any NAC where my actions were called to question, so I would like to think I am doing something right in terms of interpreting policy. (Though I should thank you for noticing that I do NAC -- anything to help out, I am glad to contribute).  As I stated, I put a lot of articles up for AfD, but I have enough respect for the authors of the articles to alert them that I am trying to push their work off the project.  The AfD process specifically requests that the article's author(s) be notified of this action, and I was surprised that, as an admin, you chose to ignore it (I am unaware of your previous qualms on the subject).  That notification is not, I believe, a "useful courtesy" -- it is basic respect for the editors who contribute to Wikipedia. Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The AfD tag says: "Please consider notifying". WP:AFD states that "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion.". So yes, it is a courtesy, and it is one I choose not to follow. I do believe it would be more productive to discuss the article at hand than some general reamrks about AFD policy, so perhaps you could turn your attention to the question I have asked quite a few times already? Fram (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As for your links: first is a Wiki-like user submitted review, second is a tracklisting, third is a tracklisting, fourth is a tracklisting, and fifth and last is a tracklisting with user submitted points. I don't see any commentary, reviews, ... from reliable sources. I also don't see any evidence that this demo got "wide release". Could you point out which source gives you that impression? Fram (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fram. The review is user-submitted, and the rest are mere tracklistings. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I know I'm the articles creator, but, Go Fuck Your Jewish God was one of the biggest demo's ever recorded. I'm big into the metal scene so my opinions might be a bit skewed to someone else, but, the sources given above by Ecoleetage are sources enough. While they may be user contributed, they appear on numerous sites which should stand for some sort of notability. I don't care about puzzlez ov flesh. Delete it if you want, but don't delete Go Fuck Your Jewish God. Here are some sites. It's listed many times on different sites, and IMO, that should be enough. Undead Warrior (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are just track listings though. Can you find something that's actually a third party review and not just a track listing? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP: MUSIC states the following: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." There is no debate that Watain is notable. The demo was released, as detailed in the various sources that have been listed. Please note that there is nothing in WP:MUSIC that requires reviews -- the key word is coverage. Technically, the track listing is coverage. It may not be a lengthy rumination on the music's value, but it nonetheless is published on well-recognised and well-respected online media devoted to the music. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage <> tracklisting. Furthermore, you again state that the demo was released "as detailed in the various sources". It is not because a copy of the demo is illegally put on the internet and all user-contributed sites get their tracklisting from that illegal download and from each other, that it is officially released. When? Which label? Where was it for sale? Which source states that it has been officially released? Fram (talk) 04:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete both. These don't come close to meeting the notability criteria. Wikipedia policies (should) apply to black metal articles just as much as they do to other articles. Also, there's nothing useful in these articles that couldn't be mentioned in a couple of lines in the band's article (which, by the way, is also barely sourced).--Michig (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * strong delete no mentions in reliable sources whatsoever. Sticky Parkin 01:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And what makes the sources given unreliable? Undead Warrior (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also take a look at this. Undead Warrior (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * UW you know I disagree with you about what is WP:RS.:) What sources are given in the article?  Only a website called "metal archives" and the band's own website or something.  Find numerous discussions of it in well known newspapers etc or books published by well-known presses, then I'll say keep:) But I looked and they aren't mentioned anywhere in WP:RS as I understand it. Diskery?  What's that lol, another website?:) Few websites are as reliable sources as news articles etc, unless it's the website of a broadcaster/publication that also exists in the real world.  I'm especially impressed by a site with "buy online" "promote your music" "e-commerce"and stuff like that as part of the page.  Oh and Diskery, the site you linked to also has the option to "add a biography"- so anyone can write anything there too- that's the opposite of WP:RS. "Submit your band" - "you can enter any info you want". :):):) Sticky Parkin 03:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no way you can even come close to saying that Watain is non notable. The Diskery site lets you submit a band, yes, but that doesn't have anything to the effect of the demo albums or Watain. Someone submitted Watain and the site took over from there. My point is this: If so many user submitted sites contain information on this, even if it's just a track listing, that is still coverage and that passes WP:MUSIC. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that watain are sufficiently notable - I added an allmusic link and I found some sources earlier which I will add to the band article. That doesn't, however, justify a separate article for every recording by the band. Coverage isn't enough unless it's significant coverage in reliable sources. Tracklistings are not significant coverage. Your best bet would probably be to migrate this article into a new section within the band's article.--Michig (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Cool name, but fails notability requirements in every manner possible. Track-listers and blog-like fan sites don' cut it. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: I know the topic of demos has come up a lot in discussions, but if you take out the things that Wikipedia disallows - warez, torrents, bbs, fan sites, myspace, icq chat, internet radio, blogs, podcasts and the like - I don't see where there have been any feature stories on this demo. If someone pulls out a Village Voice, LA Weekly, NY Times, AP, Rolling Stone, Kerrang! (Or even Aardschok or Revolver) that has a feature article on the demo (not the band but this specific demo) than I for one would change my opinion. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:54, 23 October 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.