Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morionor


 * 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. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  10:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Morionor

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Deleted once under WP:CSD. No evidence of multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources, special live show on a campus radio station seems to be about the measure of it. Article is written in heavily promotional tone. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What exactly would you deem "multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources"? Is MetalReview a trivial website now? Is Lords of Metal, trivial as well? According to you no doubt, but to people who actually enjoy listening to metal they are among the most important sources for news within the genre. True the article is written in a promotional tone, I can tell you why. I put up a much smaller more-to-the-point page for this band a few days ago and it got instantly deleted before I had a chance to even notice, the reasons given were that the band did not have any "notable" features. I was given a list of "criteria for musicians and ensembles" to be deemed notable, among this was releasing two "non-trivial" albums, and playing with nationally acclaimed bands. Therefore I put these in the article. Another criteria was being a "prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city." This band is the most prominent example of technical melo-black metal in Atlanta (again I wouldn't expect you to know this, unlike myself who happens to live in Atlanta). They are published through Deathgasm Records and sold through several national independent distros (such as Red Stream Inc.) as well as at least one international distro, VVPO (Japan).


 * I'll readily agree they are no where near "big" or "important" compared to whatever type of music you listen to, but in a genre that is already underground their following is considerable. Mostly why this makes me mad is that I see many articles with much less importance and notability than this band up on Wikipedia, here is an example: Sad_Legend. If you are suggesting it for deletion becuase of the content itself then I will be more than happy to correct it and take out the fluff as long as some other gun-ho Wiki-editor doesn't come along the next day and delete it becuase I failed to spell out why some people feel this band is notable. Hyperion395 16:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC) — Hyperion395 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note Hyperion395 is the creator of this article.
 * That's seven hours after it was re-created. Maybe you don't know how many articles on bands get created in an average day; it's a perennial pain keeping a lid on them.  A large number get speedily deleted, a smaller number are tagged for deletion through other processes, a few are good and valid. Guy (Help!) 12:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand what you are saying, I'm sure lots of terrible "high school" band profiles are created all the time just becuase the people in them feel that it's cool to have a Wikipedia article. If you check out this band's myspace page you'll see that they are hardly unnoticed. Hyperion395 17:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, leaning toward keep -- As I see it, you've given two reasons for deletion. The second is a "promotional tone", which is (unless irredeemable spam) more appropriately handled through inappropriate tone.  The first is that the band fails WP:Notability (music).  However, they have released 2 albums and are mentioned in 5 cited sources (of which at least 1, the "lords of metal" site, is non-trivial).  From User:Hyperion's comment above, this article and its first (deleted) version are not identical in content (at least this one didn't qualify for speedy deletion).  You nominated the article for AfD just 7 hours after it was created.  Why not tag it for improvement instead, notify the creator, and give the article a chance (a few days at least) to develop/improve?  -- Black Falcon 03:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC. There are no reliable sources, those provided consist of 'fan' reviews and reviews after the band submitted their work. THe sources also confirm the two albums are self-financed. Nuttah68 18:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is the band financing their recordings a reason for deletion? Lots of bands in obscrue genres have to do this either becuase they can't find a big enough label or the label does not give them funds to pay for recording. Your claim that the sources are 'fan' reviews is completely incorrect and I fail to see the relevance. MetalReview.com is a hugely popular website that reviews thousands of metal albums, Lords of Metal is another popular website based in the Netherlands, "Da Lynx Org" is a popular Italian printed 'zine, the Metal Archives is a fan submitted review site so you were right on one case. Hyperion395 17:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The band self financing the albums is important because one of the criteria of establishing notability per WP:MUSIC (which you should read) is '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 of performers, many of which are notable).'  From WP:MUSIC is also a link explaining what reliable sources are. Nuttah68 18:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The Metal Archives entry was submitted by a user called ShadowMan, and if you click on his profile it clearly states he's a member of the band. Fails WP:BAND. One Night In Hackney 12:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What does the fact that someone in the band originally creating the Metal Archives entry, over two years ago, have to do with the validity of this band at all? Honestly it seems like you guys hardly even think about what you're saying before you say it. First off, the reviews on the Metal Archives page were not submited by anyone in the band, and the band profile has been updated many times since it was submitted, again by people not in the band. The last time it was updated was the day before yesterday (by someone in Belgium no less), how does this suggest they merit deletion? Hyperion395 17:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It shows there are no reliable third party sources, meaning it fails WP:V. The band's website and Myspace aren't third party sources, the Metal Archives entry can be edited by anyone (as you pointed out) and the other external links are just album or demo reviews, not sources.  One Night In Hackney 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I will take the promotional tone and the extra fluff out of this article. If anyone is actually interested in honestly judging this band just search their name on Google and look through the 3,000 results. Rofl, I see the Sad Legend page no longer exists... that was fast.

I was reading the melodic black metal a week ago, saw a band I like (Morionor) listed as an example of the genre, clicked on the link and saw they had no page. Upon reading that I could "help Wikipedia by creating an article", I did so and consequently encurred all this drama. What gives? Maybe think about changing the default message. Hyperion395 18:12, 11 February 2007 (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.