Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latent Anxiety


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Latent Anxiety

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No reliable sources to meet notability for a musical act.

Plenty of sources have been given, but here's a rundown:
 * Allmusic counts as a review. This is good.
 * ASCAP, proves the band exists, but doesn't contribute towards encyclopedic notability. It does, however, elevate the band above the normal WP:GARAGEBAND level.
 * Reviews that don't exist online, such as Dark Spy Magazine. These are hard to verify, and when a magazine doesn't have a wikipedia article, it's hard to gauge its verifiability.
 * Independent Music Awards has a page, the specific link is a 404, but the quote given suffices as counting towards reviews.


 * The link http://www.independentmusicawards.com/ima/2010/latentanxiety/ shows an interview entitled: "Discover Artists Submitting to 10th IMAs: Latent Anxiety" --KDSRRGurl (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * celebrity-link is completely useless in terms of being a reliable source.
 * the label page is good because it has quotes, but they look suspiciously cooked, like there was a "review exchange" done. In any case, those reviews aren't sourced, they are effectively peer-to-peer reviews- different than having Spin or Rolling Stone doing a writeup.
 * last.fm is a fansite.


 * The Last.fm wiki/bio cannot be used for Wikipedia purposes; however, Last.fm fans CAN NOT upload albums to the site. Albums must be uploaded directly by the artist or the record label, or imported directly from Last.fm record label partners.  Last.fm records the number of 'Last.fm registered listeners' the artist has, and the number of times each listener plays a track.  ie. http://www.last.fm/music/Latent+Anxiety/+albums Five albums have been uploaded to the Last.fm database by Latent Anxiety. Each album includes a track listing and track times, and pertinent information, if any (official release date). --> http://www.last.fm/music/Latent+Anxiety/Detonation --> Refer to Last.fm faqs for "Can I add new albums to Last.fm or edit existing ones (for instance, their track listings)?" http://www.last.fm/help/faq?category=97#355 --> Therefore Last.fm should suffice as a source for confirmation of album release only and that it has a number of listeners which have confirmed it's existence via the listener stats. --KDSRRGurl (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sonic Seducer is hard to weigh.


 * Sonic Seducer is publication of the Thomas Vogel Media e.K. in Germany (Company)
 * http://www.thomasvogelmedia.de/start.php?rubrik_id=4 (German Version)
 * http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.thomasvogelmedia.de/start.php%3Frubrik_id%3D4&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhjsDbvGA-DJ6PdTga7Ws_7WsDkc1g (English Version) --KDSRRGurl (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "grave concerns ezine" is .. an ezine/blog. WP:SPS applies.
 * "music street journal" appears to be one step above a review mill. Perhaps useful to give their review, but not a strong win towards notability.


 * Please be more specific in terms of "review mill." Thank-you. --KDSRRGurl (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * the band's website doesn't help with notability
 * all4themusic is a blog.
 * mortal loom announcement just confirms the bands worked together. Nothing more; note Ilja's other band isn't notable, so no help there.
 * NME certainly shows the band exists, but it's effectively their lastfm site. I don't even see reviews, just mentions. NME does plenty of award shows, so it's hard to figure out the significance of winning the "eWorld Music Awards 2011". It's not exactly the Grammys.

Overall, the band exists, but the easiest way to have a Wikipedia entry for a band is to win a major award or have a very successful single/album. If the article is deleted by consensus, myself or another admin can move the article to your account to continue working on it, then it can be moved back into the articlespace proper. tedder (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Difficult one, this. Five albums released should mean that the band has received enough coverage, but in this case perhaps not. The Allmusic review is fine as coverage, but it's the only coverage in reliable sources that I could find, and is not enough on its own to support an article. The review snippets on the band's website don't suggest that further RS coverage exists. If more coverage can be found, then we may be able to keep this but as it is there just isn't enough.--Michig (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This looks like an independent music project on an independent label, so coverage in sources that focus on mainstream acts on a major label may be not as likely as those found on the music project's official website link to reviews.

Notability criteria that seem to be met:

"1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself."


 * "Allmusic counts as a review. This is good." (tedder).
 * Sonic Seducer (on WP) and Dark Spy Magazine are primarily print music magazines, the first one with a circulation of 60 to 90 thousand copies per volume. One of the cited sources is also online with one of the recent article edits.

Comment on "Reviews that don't exist online, such as Dark Spy Magazine..." (tedder): Not all print magazines publish their content online. Print media without additional online content do not necessarily compromise verifiability. In this case reviews are online from volume 27, see under "Musik-Reviews" on whereas the cited review was allegedly printed in volume 26.

"5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster)."

The music project released 5 albums. The independent label "...was created in the Spring of 1999..." according to their website. The label's roster has various artists including: "Mortal Loom has garnered a reputation for international excellence, working with many artists including Chris and Cosey of CTI as well as other artists around the world."

"9. Has won or placed in a major music competition."

Listed under Awards and Nominations but I'm not sure if these count as major competitions, perhaps in the independent music scene.


 * Citation links for awards require correction, however, http://www.eworldmusicawards.com/node/44 awards can be verified. --KDSRRGurl (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Industrialhammer (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC) — Industrialhammer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * In reference to Music Street Journal's reviews. This is posted by Gary Hill, publisher of Music Street Journal. If what you mean by a review mill is someone who does reviews for pay and only does positive reviews, then in one sense that's accurate. We only do positive reviews, but that just means if we don't like something more than dislike it we don't cover it. And the reasoning behind that is that we don't have time to cover all the good stuff, so it makes no sense wasting time on bad stuff. Also, we feel that describing music is more important than stating a thumbs up or thumbs down because personal tastes vary. I came to that concept when I read a review trashing a Candlemass album. Fortunately the review went into details as to what was wrong about the disc. Those attributes told me I'd like it - and I bought it and loved it.


 * If you mean that we'll review anything that gets sent to us, to a degree that is accurate, too. Within the following rules: As mentioned before, we need to like the item more than dislike it. And, two, that item needs to be available for the public to get in some manner - either through free download or purchase or some method. It doesn't make any sense for us to tell someone how great something is and then tell them that they can't get it.


 * We've been publishing since 1998 and, therefore, have covered a LOT of stuff. We've done interviews with many big name artists - including Godsmack, Yes, Queensryche, Judas Priest, Motorhead, Hawkwind and many more. We've also been considered a "go to" source by a lot of progressive rock musicians and fans.


 * I hope these things help to clear that up in one way or another. Thanks. Anyone seeking more information, feel free to email us at (email redacted). — 71.82.215.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC).

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: "These are hard to verify, and when a magazine doesn't have a wikipedia article, it's hard to gauge its verifiability." Tedder, please explain. Sources are not bound to have a Wikipedia article to be verifiable. While a source on Wikipedia certainly accounts for its verifiability a lack of Wikipedia inclusion does not automatically discredit its verifiability. Also, Wikipedia is not and shall not be a primary source in itself as it is based on a variety of sources in different formats, which are to be referenced properly. To verify a non-online source it has to be ultimately acquired. — Sun Wolf Rider (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - per Sun wolf rider.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - --KDSRRGurl (talk) 16:07, 21 March 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.