Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vision Éternel (2nd nomination)


 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Vision Éternel
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability not established. There are a lot of citations, but most are to the band's own website, or to other self-published sources. Other citations are to sources published by associated companies such as the band's record label, publisher and recording studio, which are owned by the band's only current member. The book cited is merely a directory, listing the band alongside many others with no analysis (see Talk:Vision Éternel for details and evidence). Most if not all of the interviews are from self-published fan sites. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation "biography" appears to have been a simple directory entry. The article has also seen a good deal of attention from a lot of CoI and SPA editors. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Disclosure: I have previously been accused of having a CoI with regard to this article, by one of the people who has edited it. The accusation was, of course, baseless. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Inviting user filelakeshoe for his input as well since he seems to have disagreed with Andy's last suggestion to delete this article in September 2017. The article has been improved by several users (including myself) since the above mention suggesting deletion, and many of the issues that Andy has pointed out and assigned templates for have been fixed. There are still things that need fixing, but this is no cause for deletion in my opinion. The article also links to many of its related bands which have been on Wikipedia for quite some time. Does anyone actually own the book by D'Halleine that Andy makes reference to in the article's talk page? His link in the talk page only shows a preview on Google Books, but there seems to be a printed paperback edition as well, according to Amazon. WikiGuruWanaB ; talk to WikiGuruWanaB 7:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * So now you're canvassing, both here and . The article may have been improved (I've done a lot of that work, before learning that so many of the sources cited are not independent), but quality is not the reason I've nominated it for deletion. The 2017 discussion to which you link is not a deletion proposal, but a report of a CoI issue. The paperback of D'Halleine's book is published by Lulu.com - a vanity press. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The David D'Halleine book is actually directly searchable on Google Books. All it contains about Vision Éternel is a directory list of their social networking URLs, not substantive content about the band. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per nominators reasons. Vanity article created by an editor who claims to be the principal member of the group and subsequently maintained by a SPA Lyndaship (talk) 10:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - The nominator is correct. This article is indeed informative with a lot of references to back it up, but it is like a towering skyscraper built on sand. Almost every source backing up a substantive point is self-published from the band's own website or related items. Independent coverage from sources like AllMusic are either dead links or routine listings of the band's basic existence. This article is an elaborate self-written biography of a band that must wait for someone else to notice their existence before they qualify for Wikipedia. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 18:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. This was obviously created by somebody who (wrongly) thought the key to Wikinotability was to get the number of references up as high as possible — but we call that reference bombing, and don't take kindly to it. Practically right across the board, the sources here are the band's own website and social media profiles, PR content from the band's own record label, routine directories like discogs.com and last.fm and Google Music and IMDb that don't support notability at all, and non-notable webzines — and they aren't the subject of the only two "reliable sources in theory" that I can see, because PopMatters just tangentially verifies a stray fact about one shortlived member being associated with a different band without mentioning this band at all in the process, and the David D'Halleine book (as I noted above) just contains a directory list of their social networking profiles rather than any substantive editorial content. Nominator is also correct about the "Artists" section of the CBC Music site — it was a section where artists with music available on the site were able to directly upload their own self-written EPK content about themselves, not a section that represented CBC staff doing journalism, so having had a profile on there is not a notability clincher just because it had "CBC" in the url. (And no, having had an artists profile on that site is not a priori proof that they ever got playlisted by the CBC Music network, so it doesn't automatically clinch the "playlisted by a national radio network" criterion either.) Notability is not extended under WP:NMUSIC to just any band whose existence can technically be verified on the web — the notability test is the extent to which they can be shown to be the subject of substantive coverage in reliable sources, but none of the sources here represent any such thing. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as neither WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC are met, despite the number of citations. Above editors and nominator are correct: the band verifiably exists, but the numerous citations in the article are almost entirely PR/primary/routine. This has already consumed enough editor time, and it can go. Bakazaka (talk) 07:15, 27 December 2018 (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.