Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rorschach Test (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 no consensus. Valid policy based arguments on both sides. Relisted twice without further input and therefore seems doubtful that a rare third listing would change the outcome. Mkdw talk 19:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Rorschach Test (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. The references are: (a) a dead link to the band on the web site of a record company; (b) a very brief note at allmusic, which  is no evidence of notability, since, as its name would suggest, allmusic tries to be as inclusive as possible, and accepts content on any musician who has ever made any recording; (c) a book, which I don't have access to, but which claims to be "A comprehensive A-Z", covering hundreds of bands, so again the mere fact of inclusion is not much proof of notability. Searches have failed to produce better evidence. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. (b) is nonsense for starters. (c) is a poor argument. Does the fact that the book covers lots of bands make the coverage insignificant or make the book an unreliable source? No. The coverage at Allmusic goes well beyond a 'brief note' . There's also coverage at MTV, plus this, and Metal Hammer (German version), which a WP:BEFORE search might have found. That's evidence of notability. --Michig (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply: (1) Why is (b) nonsense? Simply asserting that it is, without explaining why, is no help. If you mean that it's nonsense that Allmusic tries to include everyone who has ever made a record, you are mistaken: it is their stated aim. (All right, to be absolutely precise, their stated aim is to include "every artist who's made a record since Enrico Caruso gave the industry its first big boost". Not quite the same as everyone who has ever made a record, but it comes to the same thing since we are not here dealing with someone from before the time of Caruso.) If, on the other hand, you accept that they try to include everyone, but think it's "nonsense" to suggest that that means inclusion is no evidence of notability, then I think you really have to explain why; unless you think that everyone who has ever made a record is automatically notable, then that seems to me to be common sense. (2) In answer to your question about (c), no of course I don't think that the fact that the book covers lots of bands makes the coverage insignificant or makes the book an unreliable source, and if you carefully re-read what I wrote, you will see that I did not say either that the coverage was insignificant or that the book was an unreliable source. All I said was that since it is so inclusive, the mere fact of inclusion is not much proof of notability, and since I had already said that I did not have access to the book, I was assuming it would be obvious that I therefore was not trying to comment on how significant the coverage was. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had said "a book, which I don't have access to, so that I can't say how extensive the coverage is..." but it never occurred to me there was any need to. (3) Whether something is a "brief note" is, of course, a matter of personal judgement. At 147 words (excluding the band's name at the top) it's not what I regard as extensive coverage, but if you disagree, then OK. (For comparison, the combined length of my nomination statement and your comment, excluding signatures, is 167 words.) (4) The other Allmusic pages you link to were not references in the article, which is what I was referring to. (5) The other three links you give are certainly relevant, but are they enough to establish notability in Wikipedia's terms? I'm not convinced. (6) It seems that I may have been mistaken when I said the book referenced covered "hundreds" of bands: I can no longer find where I read that, but several sources say that it covers more than 100. The book is 144 pages long, so on average there is about a page per band; more than trivial mention, but not truly extensive coverage. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Enough coverage to establish notability as noted above (the fact that Allmusic covers all types of music does not make it an unreliable source and the coverage there (over three articles, not just the one that was originally cited) is significant, there are two (paywalled) articles in the German version of Metal Hammer and an MTV article) plus those cited in the article (CMJ New Music Monthly/Report, etc.). I'm assuming good faith on the citation of the McIver book (which according to Amazon is 200 pages long and covers 'over a hundred' bands). More print coverage is very likely to exist. --Michig (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   18:41, 23 October 2015 (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.