Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phase (band)


 * 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. v/r - TP 15:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Phase (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Looks like an advertisement. No reliable sources Night of the Big Wind  talk  16:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:MUSIC on the grounds of not having two albums on a major label and none of the sources appear reliable, so no multiple mentions in mainstream media.--  SabreBD  (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read before you act. It says it has to meet at least one of the criteria not all of them. Woud appreciate if you'd edit your vote.thank you --Asouko (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability_(music) Says "it may be notable if it meets at least ONE of the following criteria:" so 2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. will do or Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country (Syria, Lebanon, Bulgaria, Turkey, Italy) there are live reports and stuff online I can provide them they need scanning. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards,   Duncan Patterson recorded in their album. they have been on Mojo magazine, Metal Hammer Greece and MTV Greece, ERA (Greek National Radio) and more...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibaghanem (talk • contribs) 20:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Hibaghanem (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Sorry, but the sourcing is a complete disaster. Link the sources to the place where the info is. Cut out links to weblogs, myspace and their own website. Thes unreliable sources make the article fail Verifiability. Night of the Big Wind  talk  23:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Duncan Patterson Blog is the only outlet the musician has to the public, if i won't cite from their press releases which everything that reaches to the press from bands comes from their own management where then? I also cited some legit musical sites... Also undeniable the show of the band in Dimasq is of undebatable notability, plus it was already cited the album's link on itunes, if i cite every site it's on like amazon and stuff it will become a mess... please help me out... Thanks Hiba — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibaghanem (talk • contribs) 00:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also what i can't understand is how is this Anathema_(band) or this Firewind better linked and how are a ton of rubbish articles still on as i was searching what could be wrong with the article for you to have marked it for deletion like Acid_Death, Afterblood, Bare Infinity, Bewised, Dakrya, Memorain, Zippo_(band), Wizo, and i can go on for hours --Hibaghanem (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, the sources are all terrible. "The only outlet the musician has to the public" makes no sense. Your sources are all personal blogs and the iTunes store, none of which are reliable. And saying "But What about this article? It's bad too!" is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, She means this blog is Duncan Patterson's only website like this  is jeff martin's website and  and this is Anathema's... How it can work for others and not this band? That is fascist and abuse of a certain "authority". What sited woould you accept as reliable for instance? --Asouko (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — Asouko (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag, such as notability, hoax, original research, or advert; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it. you clearly didn't do these before you nominated the article for deletion... I don't care if it is deleted any more but this is going really personal here. Please inform fair minded administrators and editors who have to do with music articles. Some how justice works around here? This is not a personal attack but an obvious inquiry; i can't seem to see how come someone with learning difficulties such as dyslexia or very very poore use of english can be prooved useful in such a community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asouko (talk • contribs) 01:58, 30 May 2012‎
 * This means that you, conform Godwin's law, have no valid arguments left. Night of the Big Wind  talk  13:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How come this thing means that? How do you work this? I didn't tell you have any connection to the Nazi party rather that you gather up and gang up against stuff without a reason... Just point what you find offensive and ways you think it should be resolved... its not science for gods sake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asouko (talk • contribs) 16:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop with your personal attack? Thanks. Night of the Big Wind  talk  17:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * your comment was obnoxious in the first place. Just point which facts you dispute. For a band of that scale and even smaller or larger like Inactive_Messiah / Inactive Messiah, Rotting Christ or so the article is pretty much ok to me. you dispute the fact that the band exists? that it has a record? that gives shows abroad? that duncan patterson plays in their record or what? And how else can it be proved? BBC? it's a rock band we are talking about not who went first in space--Asouko (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just start reading the nomination. And otherwise, read the comment just below here. The explaines the problem the article has: no reliable sopurces Night of the Big Wind  talk  22:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is too bad that you have such a strong dyslexia that you are unable to read the problem on the article: no reliable sources, or, in your language: υπάρχουν αξιόπιστες πηγές Night of the Big Wind  talk  09:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep on Conditions, why don't you all sit and discuss on how to improve the article rather than playing the cops? I really can't understand... The instructions you give are so generalized like "this is not propper, go figure out"--94.66.152.15 (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * — 94.66.152.15 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * It is loud and clear in the nomination: it looks like an advertisement and has no reliable sopurces. Blogs, the own website, myspace, facebook, the Itunes shop and so are not regarded as reliable sources. Independent and reliable sources are needed. See Verifiability, Identifying reliable sources. Night of the Big Wind  talk  17:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG and that is the only thing which matters. Also, from the guideline noted above, "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion." All those notability guidelines are not actually relevant if X is notable and typically asserts whether or not it probably IS notable. Deletion is a last resort, the article can easily be fixed and an internationally recognized band. It doesn't even seem that a major contributor has a mastery of English, so phrases like 'engage tenths of thousands of listeners worldwide' are clearly mistakes. It needs fixing not deleting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How does it meet GNG? Explain that. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - Numerous interviews, critiques on its work, ranked #3 alternative and #15 nationally on Reverbnation's Greek charts. Doesn't seem to be a clear chart for any other, most mix top Greek sales (foreign artists sales rather then national artists). Seeing numerous magazine entries, in rotation at 3 radio stations from 2010-2011. (Needs verification, but it is mentioned with limited details) Has done 100+ concerts (by some sources) and has more then hundred thousand plays of their songs according to the records on the Myspace and Lastfm sites. For an indie band it certainly has enough comments to be verified, but as for notability, it generally meets it I think, though a lot of indie artists (even the popular ones) have stand out matters because they do not push the advertising and events as major labels can. There is more then enough (even without the 404s) to prove the band exists, plays frequently, released work and that work has been reviewed in several different sources and has done plenty of interviews for magazines, radio and is part of a fringe musical group, but still more important then Jimbo's garage band because they did international concerts (i.e Syria) and this is before we get into self-publication which they don't seem to be that good at. Is it the most notable thing, no, but it still verifiable and notable enough to receive press throughout the past 2 years. Even with a fair amount of that 404ing before it could be archived. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The arguments given by Asouko (the author of the article), the other single purpose account, and the single purpose IP amount to (a) mentioning sources which are not reliable, not independent, or both, or too indiscriminate to be an indication of notability (e.g. a blog, press releases, amazon), (b) asserting that it is "undeniable" that a performance by the band is of "undebatable notability", despite the fact that others clearly do deny it, (b) stating that there are other articles which, it is claimed, are no better, (c) saying that anyone who thinks the article should be deleted is "fascist" and "nazi", and is "playing the cops". None of these are reasons for not deleting under Wikipedia policy. The only independent editor to argue for "keep", ChrisGualtieri, says "Meets WP:GNG and that is the only thing which matters", but, as Ten Pound Hammer points out, does not give any indication at all of how or why it "meets WP:GNG". There are 16 references in the article. One of those does not mention "Phase", some of them barely mention it, or merely include it in a list. Some are clearly not independent sources, or not reliable sources. I am not saying "delete", because it may be that there are some reliable sources, but it has not yet been demonstrated that there are. None of the editors saying "keep" have been around for more than a few months, so it may be that they are not clear what is needed to establish notability. Those who are asking for "keep" need to read the guideline on reliable sources, if they haven't already done so, and explain clearly which sources are reliable and why. If they can do so, then that will be great, but if not, then the article will have to be deleted.
 * I disagree... you are partially right BUT wikipedia on the so called verifiability article (don't let me cite it again it's supposed everyone who takes part in the discussion has checked what's been said) it says blogs are taken into account on conditions and we have to accept Duncan Pattersons Official website which happens to be a blog to verify the information that we actually recorded for Phase. it's not a newsblog which we can't ferify the informaation posted. also Uplayas blos is a part of Uplayas website and the post is not created by users but by Uplayas stuff it self and it verifys what's been said about the cover art. Uplaya is a legit organisation and it has also invented the Hit Song Science. Also the reverbnation's chart's are quite legit to my opinion and it verifys the significance of the band for the region. also in the bulgarian interview it's been said about a show in sofia. Eitherway the band meets WP:GNG and ChrisGualtieri is totaly right also for the corrections needed.--Asouko (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I am a music journalist my self and I agree that people in the community here should notify administrators who have experience in editing and/or supervising music articles in here. Criteria of notability is not a google search with the term "Phase" which as a word is really general and companies with Strong Search Engine Optimisation are in the World Wide Web. Wikipedia is the worlds most reliable encyclopedia at the moment and I have started doubting this reliability... "Teenage" arguements for the sake of arguing or for the gain of small moments of glory wont fit in here. Strongly believe that this article should be in Wikipedia but as you commented my reliability in voting would be of zero significance but I could not, not comment because some stuff simply insult common sense. Not only "Metallica" are demonstrated in Wikipedia and it shouldn't be like that anyway. I "Strong Keep" but bring some one who could really vote for it. Chris Papadakis --94.66.152.15 (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have nominated the article because it lacks reliable sources. But I guess people forget one tiny thing that might be very interesting in this case: sources in English are appreciated, but not mandatory. So reliable sources in Greek, will also be acceptable when reliable and independent... Night of the Big Wind  talk  10:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Reply' - Reverbnation might not be the best to prove notability but they are ranked #15 nationally. They were previously in the top 100 worldwide on Reverb. Here's an interview in English from RockliveBG, a Greek music website. Interview with RockOverdose (bad quality, in Greek) referred from Soundcloud.  One from Artfools.  There was a magazine special in Imagine Magazine, Feb. 2012, sadly only some facebook clippings were posted by the band. I've seen dozens of shows which they have played and I hate to say it, but since I don't read or understand Greek I won't be able to do a whole lot to grab native language reviews or content. Though we have numerous little sources, the content should be cut down to what we can verify. I believe deletion is a last resort, but the article is a bit distorted and has too many claims. I've begun cutting them down some. They may not be big, but we can verify that they exist, they play many shows, have a good amount of work, and have some recognition. While it may not be the guideline for Notability music, the fact they have attention is probably enough to pass if the article is fixed up. I'm going to tinker with it some now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Did a load of clean up and fixing. I can see the single being hosted on Feb 2010 from Microsoft's Playlist 7, but I can't get the actual press release for it. A minor mention from a notable companie's larger push for marketing, using Phase's work in the process. Still have numerous indie reviews and small interviews here and there, I'm mostly finding the English ones. According to lastfm's event list they've done more then 30 events recently, but Lastfm is not a reliable source. I've removed the ones which could be used for advertising and some useless sources, cut out the fancy timeline and all but the current members from the band. Its far from perfect, but if fixing these issues will help it stick around, why not. They seem to have released a song 'Red Alert' on a new album on 'Between the Lines'. According to itunes that is, but the album art uses 'Phaze' as the attributed band. So I'm not adding it in. Its one of the more notable indie bands, but no, its not highly important. If anything In Consequence should go and we should keep the band itself just for completeness. I think it meets GNG because we have numerous comments about its existence and has been in good standing with outlets like Reverbnation with #3 in Greek alternative and #15 nationally. Uplaya might not be the best source, but they do reflect the material in this page and did comment about its cover art. I see 8 different interviews, reviews and critiques, but none are major labels. They may not be famous, but we can vouch for certain claims and it is verifiable and repeated throughout numerous sources. Under WP:DEL-REASON it could only hit upon the reason "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)", but they seem to meet WP:MUSIC on some levels and even if they do not meet the exact criteria, it doesn't mean the article has to be deleted. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the tags be removed by now? Thank you... --Asouko (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Citing press releases of bands when it's about a fact like Duncan Patterson (or duncanpatterson mentions him self on intevriews or own site) Plays in the record is not improper mention to self published reference because it's not faction (fiction mixed with facts or assumptions) also a year before there were so many more articles on that... not every publication keeps an online archive (especialy if it's in Syria for e.g. ).The article is online on and half a year before the nomination. --Asouko (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While true verification is part of the requirement. 404ing is a problem, but quite frankly the scattered information across the net doesn't help too much, reviews, sales, press releases are not individually able to bolster an indie group to Wikipedia level, but together they can prove notability. Self sources are fine for limited scope, but I'd really like to see additional magazine references, critiques and some of the bigger venues played. The Syria one is good, but for groups like this, more information is better then less information and Myspace and Facebook don't go well simply because the content is self-published. Its the 'do other people care about it' part that is the hardest thing to prove. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I just found a review in the nominators native language here in every review greeks mostly stand on Duncan Pattersons contribution due to Duncans and Anathema's scale on Greece, Poland and Middle East. --Asouko (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, a couple of the sources in the article are legit on second look, and the review above looks reputable too. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * keep this has enough sources/refs to be considered notable.--KarlB (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per 10 pound Hammer (if he thinks it's almost notable, it has to be notable). It has three good sources, so it's notable. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2012 (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.