Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unstable (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   delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 08:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Unstable (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable band. Lots of sources in the article, but there are either primary sources, places to buy their music, or websites that simply contain the word "unstable" in the title and have nothing to do with music. None convey any notability and I am unable to find anything better. VQuakr (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. No significant coverage found at all in reliable sources. Same is true of Thomas John Stanford and their album and EP.--Michig (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources; fails WP:MUSIC. All the links fail WP:RS. Also delete all associated pages by same rationale. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote:"Lots of sources in the article, but there are either primary sources, places to buy their music, or websites that simply contain the word "unstable" in the title and have nothing to do with music."
 * Don't Delete

Note:I also want to state to you that use of the link of where to buy the album was used to prove the validity that the album is sold on many markets, and sites, and wasn't just a home made ordeal, it's an album. It was unmarked (not listed as 'buy album') it was a source for editors to see, so they could see this was an officially distributed album, and it deserved coverage n the worlds encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Response:Okay that is very disagreeable. Plugging that an album is available is on every single wikipedia band page. That is completely different than saying 'support unstable', 'buy their albums' I don't know where some of the strange sources come from. The bands official webpage came offline on Sunday January 23rd 2011, although an official site should be considered a reliable source. What band doesn't sell their album on an official website? Because it's listed on the same page as information doesn't mean the source is being posted as promotional. It's the page the info came from.

Quote: "None convey any notability and I am unable to find anything better." Response: The encyclopedia of metal (Metal-Archives) is considered a reliable source for any metal band worth while. Why? The website is very picky about the bands listed, and do not list bands who don't qualify as metal, and bands with no notable releases. Spirit of Metal is the same exact deal. It is a reliable source to look up metal bands with actual releases. A bands official myspace provides a biography with information, album details, links to blogs that are direct from a band, ect. A good example is when you go to a bands wikipedia page and you see "According to the official myspace", however you argue that's not a reliable source... so question, should every article linking to a bands official myspace be deleted? The bands official facebook doesn't even provide room for advertisement. Unstable's is updates from the band directly, videos that evidence big show performances, and list the info used for the source. Use of OFFICIAL venue links to back up and create evidence of performances of big national shows, which the band has indeed played sound like reliable and necessary sources when claiming such things. No Clean Singing, a heavy metal review, and heavy metal band archive is a prestiged European metal website, and they only review bands, once again, that are worthwhile, and where it is sourced is relevant, and backs up the albums large distribution that was claimed, because it wasn't just claimed, it's factual. Once again, photo evidence of Unstable albums in music stores, and hundreds of loose copies (which would be unnecessary is they weren't sold on a large scale) can be provided. Also, you might not find anything better because the band is still establishing itself on more national websites that are considered reliable. Job for a Cowboy up and coming didn't have a huge internet presence, but was recognized on wikipedia because they self produced at the age of 16 the EP Doom.

Quote: "Same is true of Thomas John Stanford and their album and EP." Their releases were released from a licensed independent label, a label that might not be Roadkill Records, however it has significance. Many bands on wikipedia have had releases exclusively on iTunes, which both albums are listed on. They have distribution in Long Island record stores, photo evidence can be supplied of the albums on sale. A band with more than out of house distribution holds significance. To say 'the same holds for their album/EP' is ridiculous. How do the pages self promote? The list the facts, the tracks, and the meaning. Why shouldn't an album written as a concept album be explained on wikipedia? Just because some album pages are blank doesn't make listing the concept and facts (who produced, ect) doesn't make it self promoting, and certainly doesn't discredit it's significance. The Thomas John page tells what a man who has traveled and played music around the world has done. His significance is that he's a solo artist with two upcoming albums (lil Eazy E, who's the son of Eazy E, and before he released an album, wikipedia had him listed a year before either of his albums were released, and listed one as upcoming)and the singer of his band. He indeed screams, raps, and freestyles, just like Kerry King uses a whammy in his guitar solos. It's only a statement of the mans work, not promotion. Look at any artists page, it says these things they're known for. No Clean Singing is proved reliable as an outside source of the band says he does these things on the album he's reviewing, so it's not just stated to make the performer look good. Coming from the slums of Brooklyn and growing up to be an accomplished and uprising artist, who earns a living in music, with a deal with a licensed independent label, sounds like a factual description of the man's history.

No listen, my main response is that this page is desired to be removed because Unstable is not signed to a major label. But here's the deal, the band had a presence in New York, and facts (such as a widely distributed album, that is being secured on other markets by the bands LICENSED independent label, and secured deals in other states, meaning this is not just a 'made it at home' album by a local band) show the band doesn indeed have significance. And with those facts stated, why aren't a lot of bands removed? The only thing that was correct was improper use on one source within the entire article.

Outside of that, what good reason could you have to take the page down than a personal vendetta? -Makk3232 (not logged in before)


 * Don't Delete. Furthermore

7.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, including verifiability. Response:Well give me a way to show verifiability. . .In Long Island the band's following is a result of playing multiple styles of music, like it's a gimmick, like KISS with the face paint, they play a bunch of styles of music. That honestly what there known for. I mean if you listen to there songs its heavy, than the guys rapping, then screaming, I mean c'mon I can't make this stuff up it's in the music. The point is they've built a following, and a label, and there self driven success because they have a following otherwise how, and why would the band waste its time and effort? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unable to find independent reliable coverage of this band.  Per nom, most sources provided are primary and/or self-promotional.  The only source that I thought might be promising is metal-archives.com but in taking a closer look - that site accepts self-submissions.  Cannot find any passing criteria for this band at WP:Music.  ♫ Cricket02  (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote:"Unable to find independent reliable coverage of this band. Per nom, most sources provided are primary and/or self-promotional.  The only source that I thought might be promising is metal-archives.com but in taking a closer look - that site accepts self-submissions.  Cannot find any passing criteria for this band at WP:Music."
 * Don't Delete

Response: Disagreed and addressed in the previous entry.

Among the sources in the Unstable article is links to a Newspaper interview, Radio appearance, major venue pages in which the band has played and is featured upon the website. (Photos, aka evidence of performance showing it's not some 'claim' making it a necessary, a primary outside the band website, reliable, and and NOT self promotional). I must ask again, where in the world do you see the grounds to call any of the sources self promotional? They in no way promote the band. The use of the album pages (such as amazon link and other store link) where the album is sold was only added as a source to verify that the album is distributed on numerous markets and not 'burn it at home' album. If that use was seen as self promotional I guaranteed it was not the intention.

Because Cricket, yo obviously don't take the time to read before posting I'm reposting my original response to your bogus claim. "The encyclopedia of metal (Metal-Archives) is considered a reliable source for any metal band worth while. Why? The website is very picky about the bands listed, and do not list bands who don't qualify as metal, and bands with no notable releases. Spirit of Metal is the same exact deal. It is a reliable source to look up metal bands with actual releases. A bands official myspace provides a biography with information, album details, links to blogs that are direct from a band, ect. A good example is when you go to a bands wikipedia page and you see "According to the official myspace", however you argue that's not a reliable source... so question, should every article linking to a bands official myspace be deleted? The bands official facebook doesn't even provide room for advertisement. Unstable's is updates from the band directly, videos that evidence big show performances, and list the info used for the source. Use of OFFICIAL venue links to back up and create evidence of performances of big national shows, which the band has indeed played sound like reliable and necessary sources when claiming such things. No Clean Singing, a heavy metal review, and heavy metal band archive is a prestiged European metal website, and they only review bands, once again, that are worthwhile, and where it is sourced is relevant, and backs up the albums large distribution that was claimed, because it wasn't just claimed, it's factual. Once again, photo evidence of Unstable albums in music stores, and hundreds of loose copies (which would be unnecessary is they weren't sold on a large scale) can be provided. Also, you might not find anything better because the band is still establishing itself on more national websites that are considered reliable. Job for a Cowboy up and coming didn't have a huge internet presence, but was recognized on wikipedia because they self produced at the age of 16 the EP Doom. " -Makk3232
 * Reply: For the record, I do not take deletion reviews lightly sir and am better known in the  article rescue arena.  I took an hour out of my day yesterday to review all sources provided and did some research on my own, frankly in hopes of saving it.  When I took the time to look at the 'About' page at metal-archives.com I did note that they are "picky" about their submissions - but that doesn't matter.  A band can still self-submit to the website, point being that the website does not write about a band on their own, they merely list the band's information - and that's all well and fine to get information about a band - but it does not make a band notable because they are listed on a self-submitted website.  Same for Myspace, Facebook, ReverbNation, etc.  Self-submitted - again - all certainly reliable sources for information - but not to prove notability.  All other links provided are trivial mentions of this band. i.e. appearances, etc.  Now if there were more extensive independent third-party write-ups of this band in magazines, ezines, newspapers, independent album reviews, and such, I would certainly reconsider.  At this time I can only find one "somewhat" independent review at nocleansinging.com.  And because anyone can release an album and distribute it, that does not automatically make anyone notable.  But in all fairness, I have extended an invitation for a more specialized peer review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal.  ♫ Cricket02  (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply: I understand you take them seriously as do I. I hope my defense of the article isn't being perceived as personal, my comments are only to back the relevance up. I do appreciate the extension of the article. I'm going to find some more sources on the internet I know are around and I'm going to update the article with the appropriate content. This is life or death to me, I hope you understand my firmness on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.101.137 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely understand your position. I have fought to save many an article.  Just in case, please do consider copying the current content from this article into a subpage so when more sources are found and/or this band becomes more notable, the article can be recreated.  ♫ Cricket02  (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:MUSIC, they would need multiple album releases on a notable independent record label. They do not have this. The label itself is not independent of the band, making their sole album self-released (I note the label itself is up for deletion). Metal Archives has never been regarded as passing WP:RS, and even if it did would not constitute extensive coverage that would count towards notability, being a site that exists to catalogue every metal band to ever release an album. NoCleanSinging also fails WP:RS. That leaves nothing whatsoever to support the band's inclusion; the article is essentially here as publicity for a non-notable band. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ResponseRead the previous posts before making a statement. All things mentioned have been addressed, and a promise was made to add new sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.101.137 (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Above posts have been read (before my original comment) and in fact have been responded to. A promise to find more sources is good, but actually needs to happen; in their absence the conclusion has to be to delete, per WP:MUSIC. Also, sign your posts. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Metal Archive, Spirit of Metal, NoCleanSinging, Myspace, iTunes, etc are not reliable sources. The claim of passing wp:music#7 is not supported by a reliable source. Selling music locally or on iTunes do not satisfy wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the previous delete !votes. Despite Makk's long-winded arguments, the band is still not notable.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 07:39, 2 February 2011 (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.