Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relics of the Chozo


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 06:27Z 

Relics of the Chozo

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fan-released collaborative album that does not meet the notability requirements for musical works on Wikipedia. No results for this album at All Music Guide. No sources whatsoever except for the project website, which violates WP:V as this is not a third-party source.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason given above. Note that these projects were all released in collaboration with the same website, Overclocked Remix:
 * Chardish 01:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Chardish 01:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Chardish 01:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Chardish 01:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Chardish 01:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Chardish 01:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Chardish 01:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Chardish 01:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)




 * Delete per nom.  P.B. Pilhet  /  Talk   01:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; but why am I so sure we've seen this on AfD before? (Not the "Kong in Concert" VfD, I seem to remember another mass AfD of video game music rearrangements albums). JuJube 01:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This set of articles was already nominated at least once before: See Articles for deletion/Hedgehog Heaven. The result was "no consensus"... what has changed? Oh, and I think that there are a few sources on Kong in Concert that are not the project website (there's one at MusicBrainz). -- Rmrfstar 02:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't see that previous AfD; nonetheless, I'm very surprised it wasn't interpreted as Delete. The role of the closing administrator is to interpret the discussion, and if all the !votes for Keep ignore Wikipedia policy in favor of their own personal taste, or, worse, unacceptable notability tests, then those !votes should be ignored. - Chardish 03:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Josh Parris
 * Keep Despite nom, it is, in fact, quite useful. --Nintenfreak 03:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)03:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
 * There are many things that are useful that do not belong in Wikipedia. The issue at debate here is that the article fails the standards of verifiability and notability, which are requirements for articles in Wikipedia. Verifiability in particular is non-negotiable. - Chardish 03:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. No notability for these albums. GassyGuy 06:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per above. WP:USEFUL is not a reason to keep.  /Blaxthos 09:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all These projects already have information pages on their respective sites. There is also a severe lack of standard for which projects are allowed to become official on ocr. In other words, anyone who managed to finish a project had it become official, regardless of quality. Lack of standards may work for OCR, but not for wikipedia. Furthermore, at the risk of being POV, I'll be frank and say that with the exception of one or two of these projects, they are all quite bad. 72.208.129.108 17:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The site these albums are from is indeed notable, and the above-mentioned guidelines for the notability of music state that albums by notable artists are automatically notable as well. Perhaps merging the articles about the albums and the one about the site itself might be an option. DorfDepp 19:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC) — DorfDepp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You're missing a step in your logic here - having your music on a notable website does not make an artist notable, otherwise every 16-year-old with a guitar on MySpace or YouTube would be considered notable. As such, these albums are not by notable artists. - Chardish 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's take your analogy a bit further - if YouTube were to release a sort of "best-of DVD" of what the YouTube employees think is some of the best stuff on their site, and the DVD would be downloaded or sold hundred thousands of times -- would this be notable? I do think so. And that's pretty much what these albums are, the best songs on a specific topic by the OCR-Community, with ten or even hundred thousands of downloads each (I only see counters for BitTorrent D/L's, but all those albums are downloadable directly as well, which is preferred by most web-users). DorfDepp 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC) — DorfDepp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Meh, I kinda changed my mind. I think it would be good if those articles would simply redirect to OverClocked ReMix. By the way, this is not a single purpose account, and I'm not exactly a new user. I've actually been quite active in Wikipedia some time ago; But only in the German edition. - DorfDepp 13:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Also, if gaming music is considered a music genre, it does meet the requirements without any trouble. While I realize this isn't argument, this article is better than most articles about music releases on the English Wikipedia. --pred 21:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot make an argument for the keeping/deletion of an article based on what else exists on Wikipedia due to the nature of the project: anyone can create articles that aren't notable or aren't up to standards. We have objective standards of notability for this very reason, and these albums meet none of them. If you are arguing that gaming music is a genre, you need cited reliable sources that indicate that the musicians behind these albums (not the OCRemix project in general) are influential within the game music genre. - Chardish 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "You cannot make an argument [...]" - I believe that was exactly what I wrote. --pred 12:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep(for all) I mean come on...Everyone knows about OCR! Why delete this?  I don't get the thought processes of the person that sent this article here. Draconiator 21:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This should be deleted because it violates Wikipedia's objective standards of notability for music. We have objective standards here because everybody likes something, so simply saying "I like it" is not an argument to keep. I agree with you that OCR is notable; however, these individual projects are not notable. To put it another way, Taco Bell is notable, but not every item on the Taco Bell menu is notable. Time (magazine) is notable, but not every issue they've released is notable. If you want to !vote "very strong keep" you need to present some very strong evidence. - Chardish 22:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point. In this case, I will change my vote to Slight Keep.  Others might like it, but I agree with the non-notability factor.  Especially since you cannot sell these kinds of albums. Draconiator 22:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd go for a delete, there's nothing that can really be merged with the main OCRemix article IMO, which already mentions the concept of projects / albums, and the individual names and sources of them. IMO whilst OCRemix is notable, the individual remixes created for it aren't, even if they're made into an album. FredOrAlive 00:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non notable. Seems to be no credible arguments in favour of keeping it. --RaiderAspect 04:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non notable - can't find any reliable third-party references via google. --Zeborah 05:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. --D-Boy 08:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - OCReMix is not open for anyone to simply post their music; that is where the MySpace or YouTube analogy fails.
 * The site staff carefully picks out submitted music to be posted to the site through a rigorous quality control system. A similar system is in place for determining the validity of official album projects. With regards to notability, OCReMix as a site is considered notable. This has been established. Among other reasons, this is because it fulfills point six in the music notability guidelines: "# Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." OCReMix is verifiably the pioneer of the genre of video game music rearrangements and is easily the most prominent site in the field.
 * Now, consider the following. OCReMix as an abstract concept did not pioneer the genre. It's fame and notability is derived from the music itself, which is created by various artists who submit to the site and go through the evaluated process. Without said music, which is created by supposedly "non-notable" artists, OCR would not have gotten off the ground at all. The site exists, and is constantly growing in popularity, because there is a community of skilled artists that contribute to the database of music that essentially defines the site. Thus, when the same artists that made (and continue to make) OCR notable release an album officially through OCR, that album in turn is also notable.
 * The Time Magazine comparison is also inaccurate. Here is a better one. Let's say there is a record label, "DNA Records", that pioneers a new style of music, Jazz Metal. The artist roster consists of primarily hobbyist musicians who have no interest in doing any sort of mainstream release are not not "notable" by Wiki standards. While an obscure/esoteric genre, various print magazines and websites applaud "DNA Records" for their accomplishment and the DNA Records site becomes the #1 place for Jazz Metal. According to the logic of the people voting "delete", any actual albums the "DNA Records" label releases would be considered non-notable. This is illogical. Simply because the artists involved are not individually notable (according to Wiki guidelines), it is their collective work that defined and developed the new genre to begin with. Surely, none of you would say that an official compilation release by DNA Records would be non-notable simply because the individual artists were not! Yet, that is what many of you are saying about OCR, which is in an identical situation. Zirconst 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC) — Zirconst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I fixed the formatting on your post. Hope you don't mind. - Chardish 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that the DNA Records albums would not notable. Genres are not invented - they are terms given by music reviewers and journalists to describe trends in sound. If the sound they pioneered was as truly innovative as you boast, the artists would be reviewed and discussed by reputable third-party sources, which would make the artists notable. Record companies with no notable artists are rarely themselves notable - remember that OCRemix is a notable website, not a notable record company. Furthermore, video game music remixes are nothing new, OCRemix (despite being a very good site) did not invent them, and fan releases by OCRemix volunteers are not notable. Your analogy would probably be more effective if you found a real-life example instead of resorting to the hypothetical. - Chardish 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's true that OCR did not pioneer or invent the genre per se, but it is the most prominent representative as we have already established and has been cited numerous times in different forms of media, as well as by notable composers in the field. The site has done quite a bit for the genre and attracted much attention for it. Moving on, for all practical purposes, OCR is a record label. Every sound recording posted to the site is distributed and branded as an "OC ReMix". The fact that there are no physical releases is inconsequential; numerous internet-only record labels exist. While the site does not refer to itself as such, for comparative purposes OCR functions like the hypothetical "DNA Records" might - collecting sound recordings from various artists, branding them, and releasing them to the public.
 * You are wrong in assuming that an innovative or pioneering sound would necessarily be "reviewed and discussed by reputable third-party sources", especially if the release in question is a compilation. What if the form of music is simply not palatable to the general public or mainstream media? What if there are so many artists involved (in the case of OCR) that discussing each one of them at length would be impossible, and it would be more practical to simply talk about the general concept?
 * Ultimately, I think the black-and-white adherence to the notability guidelines here does not make sense when applied to something like this. I think the album guidelines were more intended for traditional labels doing traditional releases. I agree that it would not be wise to allow every tiny indie label with a basement album release to be on Wikipedia. And to that end I think the guidelines are successful. However, an allowance can and should be made for a case like OCR, which is NOT traditional either in the type of music it promotes or in how it distributes the music. These albums have been downloaded (collectively) over 110,000 times through OCR's official torrents alone, not counting the traffic from numerous HTTP mirrors. That is a truly massive number, and to write them off simply because a print publication hasn't written about them specifically would be in poor judgment. Zirconst 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC) — Zirconst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Big numbers don't mean anything in deletion debates. If you have to explain in several paragraphs why something is notable, chances are it isn't. We have objective criteria for notability because anyone can make a case like yours to explain why something that isn't notable should be on Wikipedia. If it's not an album by notable artists, and there aren't reliable third-party sources on the subject of the albums, it's not notable by Wikipedia standards. And, for purposes of objectivity, let me state that I enjoy these albums very much. They're really good. But they're not notable. - Chardish 21:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You continue to neglect to address my central point - the same point DorfDepp made. The artists that submit to OCR are what give the site its notability, much like a notable record label is only that because artists record and release music through it. Once again, as these are official album projects that represent the core of what OCR is all about (which has been established to be notable), they should be considered notable even though the individuals involved are in and of themselves not. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, if you will.
 * BTW the reason why I continue to write so much is that barely anyone in favor of deletion has provided any non-trivial discussion on the topic and appear to just be reading your initial post and making a cursory evaluation of the facts at hand. According to the very "Arguments to Avoid" article you linked, "delete per nom" is as invalid as my citation of # of downloads. I will remind everyone, as an earlier poster did, that the same arguments for deletion were brought up for these albums in the past and no consensus was reached. Ignoring that precedent seems unjust. Zirconst 00:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC) — Zirconst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * No, reliable, third-party sources on the topic of OCRemix are what give the site its notability, not its artists. This is the standard for every article on Wikipedia. You could find reliable, non-trivial, third-party sources about these albums and end this debate immediately. Do not waste words if these sources do not exist. - Chardish 00:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I just noticed that Zirconst's only edits have been to this deletion debate. Welcome to Wikipedia! I can understand why you wouldn't have a sound understanding of Wikipedia policy: that's okay, you're new here. I invite you to read articles on Wikipedia's three core content policies: verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. You also might be interested in what Wikipedia is not. I hope you enjoy your stay here, but I recommend you join the community, make some edits, ask some questions, and do some reading around before participating in AfD discussions. - Chardish 01:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, are you the same Zircon who is a contributor to OCRemix, and who wrote track 11 for one of the albums up for deletion? If so, you have a definite conflict of interest - while this may not disqualify you from participation in this debate, it is considered good etiquette to reveal this, especially since by the nature of your arguments you are claiming that you are notable by Wikipedia standards. - Chardish 01:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - If Slashdot seems to think OCR album projects are "notable" I'm inclined to agree with them. That's just me though. jtitteri — jtitteri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: The above was this user's first edit. - Chardish 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. Moogy   ( talk )  23:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem here is, one must use a very liberal interpretation of WP:MUSIC to declare that these are notable by that guideline. There are no reliable sources covering them, so they fail the primary criteria. None of the musicians involved can be considered notable by WP:MUSIC, and OCReMix can't really be considered an "ensemble", so they fail the "Albums" criteria.
 * Now, here's the place where things get confusing: The argument for keeping these is "OCReMix is notable, these are distributed through OCReMix, thus these are notable as well". OCReMix is notable through WP:WEB, as a website; it's not a record label, so OCR can not confer notability to its projects through WP:MUSIC. But, these "albums" aren't really albums in the strict sense; they have no physical distribution, only distribution through the OCReMix website. They may then fall under the category of "web content" as well.
 * However, they'd likely fail those criteria as well, because of the previously noted lack of coverage in reliable sources, along with the fact that they are not distributed independently, only through OCReMix itself.
 * It is also noted that the projects are already mentioned and listed in the main OCReMix article.
 * My verdict: Delete and redirect to OverClocked ReMix. WarpstarRider 01:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - There seems to be some outside solicitation for votes on this entry going on. Moogy   ( talk )  02:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to remind everyone nominating for deletion to please look at the following list of OCR press coverage; http://www.ocremix.org/info/Media_Coverage - verifiable mentions of these very albums from third party sources, both net-only (but non-trivial) and print. Regardless of the supposed conflict of interests I have (though I have made no effort to conceal my identity) one cannot ignore these press mentions.Zirconst 02:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC) — Zirconst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * First off, we have to ignore the Slashdot postings, as those were written by members of the projects themselves (or djpretzel.) Then we are left with three sources: the Russian DVD insert, which is likely a trivial reference, the Music4Games blog entry, which is a non-notable and unreliable website, and the IGN.com reference, which merely displays the album's cover art as a picture of Sonic. The rest of the posts are about OCRemix itself, not the albums. Wikipedia's notability guidelines require multiple, non-trivial, third-party, reliable sources: none of these sources fulfill any of those requirements, and the single source for each of those three albums is not enough to satisfy notability. - Chardish 03:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into an article called List of notable OverClocked Remix songs or something. Each of the nominated articles them doesn't deserve its own article, but I believe it should get mentioned and summarised in a small section each on such a page. Just my opinion. --FlyingPenguins 04:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If the albums themselves are not notable, and the artists are not notable, then I guarantee you that none of these songs are notable. - Chardish 04:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fan music is roughly the equivalent as fan fiction as far as notability goes, and we all know that that's always deleted. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The legitimacy of "fan music" has been addressed in the past, OCR itself was considered as an AfD. More than enough sourcing to prove it is notable in a variety of ways, so bad comparison. 04:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find an AfD for OCR; regardless, OCR is subject to a different notability guideline. It's a website, so its notability is established according to WP:WEB. The website is what is judged as a notable subject, not the individual pieces of music. The albums must meet WP:MUSIC, and they don't. WarpstarRider 05:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OCR is not only a website. As has been discussed numerous times, it has become the most prominent representative for video game music arrangements and is widely recognized as a major force in the world of video game music in general. Again, simply read the media mentions portion of the site to verify that for yourself. I contend that it is notable under both the music and web guidelines. 01:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zirconst (talk • contribs). — Zirconst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'm going to ask you kindly to thoroughly familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy before you continue participating in this debate. You are arguing, against apparent consensus, that OCR is an exception to Wikipedia rules, using arguments that are largely unverified. While it's okay to argue this, people are less likely to listen to you unless you have demonstrated that you already have an understanding of the rules. Right now there is strong evidence to suggest that you are a single purpose account with a conflict of interest, which essentially removes all weight your arguments could possibly have. If you want your views about projects you've worked on to be listened to, it would be a good idea to demonstrate through actions that you have an interest in the Wikipedia project as a whole, and are not simply attempting to use it as a vehicle for publicity or exposure. If you have questions or comments I would be happy to answer them on my my talk page. Thank you. - Chardish 02:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Question If you are all going about that these articles should be deleted, then shouldn't the Projects section of the OverClocked Remix article be deleted as well? Draconiator 05:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the projects are essentially part of OCR, they can stay in that article. The problem is that they don't have notability independent of OCR, so they shouldn't have their own articles. WarpstarRider 05:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment About the press coverage link on OCR, it should be noted PC Gamer (UK) mentioned the Doom project in the November 2005 issue . According to the rules, there seems to be no doubt that this doesn't satisfy the notability requirement of Wikipedia since there aren't enough noteworthy sources.  Admittedly, I'm on OCR staff, but I think it's the points that matter, not the person's relation to the cause. Wesley Cho 05:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: cite it. I'm open to keeping these articles, but as it stands it is very difficult for me to evaluate whether they are notable because I don't know where the info came from&mdash;in particular, you should demonstrate some recognition of this music outside the remix website. Everyking 06:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Laughably not notable. Delete all related secondary OCR pages and seriously trim the OCR entry. This looks like a vanity entry. - Draxle 22:52, 9 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.