Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Breath of Life (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. Based on Cavarrone and Michig's statements, I'm closing this as no consensus. Yet, there's no prejudice to an extremely early renomination in case reliable sources don't get added to the article that prove notability.  Wifione  Message 11:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The Breath of Life (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A proposed deletion of this article was contested with an assertion that this band passes the fifth notability criterion for musical ensembles. This criterion states that a musical ensemble is notable if it "has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels." As far as I can tell, this band has not released any albums on major labels or important indie labels. A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. Neelix (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: The Breath of Life published three albums and an EP under the "Hall of Sermon" Gothic indie label, and the guideline says "i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable": the label was founded in 1991, and about the performers, are not Lacrimosa notable? what about Love Like Blood? and Evergrey? and Girls Under Glass? Also, they published an album with "Dark Wings", a label active from 1991 to 2005 that included in its roster notable bands such as Dance or Die, And One or Stratovarius. Cavarrone (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator - Before this discussion started, the Hall of Sermon article was deleted due to lack of notability. A band is not notable by virtue of association with a non-notable label. Neelix (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are different criteria for companies and for musical ensamble, you should know, and the guideline doesn't say "an independent label that has an article on Wikipedia". Hall of Sermon and Dark Wings could not have the adequate coverage for an article on Wikipedia but are, literally, independent labels with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable. We could discuss about the guidelines, about the concept of notability in itself, or about the notability of this subject under other points of view or other criteria, but it is spectacularly evident that this group meets this criterium. - Cavarrone (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Whether or not a label has an article on Wikipedia does not determine whether it is acceptable under WP:MUSIC (and the Hall of Sermon article was deleted yesterday, via prod, with a dubious rationale). The label is judged by whether it is "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable", which Hall of Sermon meets. Chubbles (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that this band meets the fifth criterion mentioned. The majority of the bands that have released albums on the "Hall of Sermon" label are of dubious notability. It appears as though we are justifying the notability of one band based on the notability of other bands, but then justifying those same other bands' notability based on the notability of each other. As far as I can tell, there are only three notable bands on Hall of Sermon (Lacrimosa, Artrosis, and Dreams of Sanity), and I would hardly consider that "a roster of performers, many of whom are notable." Even if The Breath of Life met the fifth notability criterion for musical ensembles, which I do not believe it does, its article would have to conform to certain requirements made of all Wikipedia articles, the relevant two of which are these: "We require that all articles rely primarily on third-party or independent sources" and "We require the existence of at least one secondary source." The Breath of Life is able to meet neither of these criteria which must be met whether it meets WP:MUSIC or not. Neelix (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The claim that groups such as Love Like Blood, Evergrey and Girls Under Glass are are "of dubious notability" is, assuming good faith, very audacious... the tons of GNews about them should be enough for a claim of notability... Cavarrone (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, Love Like Blood has only one GNews hit and Girls Under Glass has none. Neelix (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol! At this point I would be curious to know how you do your researches, for sure you are using a wrong method... Girls Under Glass: 59 GNews entries (not all about the group, but about 80/90% are about it). Love Like Blood 102 entries. As above, not all the entries are about the group but at least 50/60% are about it. Cavarrone (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies; I believed that the straightforward GNews search brought up archived entries as well. Nonetheless, the central point of this discussion is not being addressed. Wikipedia guidelines require that all articles "rely primarily on third-party or independent sources" and demonstrate "the existence of at least one secondary source." This article can do neither. Neelix (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources surely exist... "The Breath of Life" has 11.100 entries in GNews archivies... it is clear that, considering how common this name is, many of these are about other stuff, and I don't know if I ever had the patience and the time to review every single article of these 11.100, but at a first quick look I see there are multiple language news sources like, , , , , , ... that's only a small sampling (more in-depth researches could reveal further and stronger sources), and appears to be enough to largely satisfy the "one-secondary-source-existence" requirement. Cavarrone (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete as non-notable, failing to show a reliable source. --Ifnord (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 13:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This article is SIX years old and has ZERO sources, and near-zero content. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Borderline in many ways. Several albums on the Hall of Sermon label, which does have a long history of releasing records by notable bands, but many of those releases are from the label-owner's band (see releases here). The band has received some reliable source coverage  and some from possibly-reliable sources . This one I'm not sure about - perhaps editors from the countries that these sites are from could comment on these. The band having been around for so long and with so many commercially-released albums inclines me to err on the side of keeping.--Michig (talk) 17:36, 25 January 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.