Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Words of Farewell


 * 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. SpinningSpark 20:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Words of Farewell

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can't find anything which will satisfy WP:BAND although I could be wrong. scope_creep (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC) 1. The band is in fact easy to research. Go to Google and type in the band's name. You simply come up with hundreds of results regarding the band. Go to YouTube and type in Words of Farewell. The first several results are songs of the band. You can also check it out on any of the external links that have been provided on the article page. 2. There is a Full Metal Alchemist episode of the same name - however there has never been a page for it. Instead the "Words of Farewell" page redirected to the full list of the anime's episodes. A disambiguation page has been created and placed on the article page so it can link to the anime episode as well. --ShockD (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, difficult to research, since the name is such a common term, but searches on the engines appear not to have any results.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Objection to deletion action. This page used to be a redirect to an anime episode. At some point it was converted to an article on a metal band. It would need to be reverted to that redirect version instead of a deletion. It would be best to retain the full article history which has been migrated to the list as legally required by the free license. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Objection* Please note the following for your convenience:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  22:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete for now as they're simply no signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister   talk  22:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 12:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. The existing sources are exactly the type of sources that don't make for notability.  As to the redirect, the redirect to the anime episode can be restored afterward. --Bejnar (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Type of sources that don't make for notability? Again with the double standards I see. But don't get me wrong - I don't care whether these 4kb deleted or not. It's just the double standards of Wikipedia. Tell me, if there should be only notable artists on here reviewed by your favorite websites why don't you go ahead and delete 80% of Wikipedia's artist pages because they are not notable? --ShockD (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The type of sources that don't make for notability include press-releases, blogs, forums and fan-sites. See WP:V. Reliable sources are third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.  --Bejnar (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that I have posted reliable sources then. Also I'm left with the impression that you think that reliability and notability are the same thing. And since everybody has an opinion and WP is not a place of opinions you can go ahead and post all of the reliable sources allowed for artist-related pages. Otherwise if one's word overrides another one's word then it's pure bias. I'll ask again - why don't you go ahead and delete most of WP's artist pages for not being notable enough? --ShockD (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what specific sources did you think were reliable and substantive? --Bejnar (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The ones I used have actually been used on numerous artist pages all around Wikipedia. That's why I'm asking about the double standards. Or it's just that there are random articles that get picked for review? And what are your reliable sources? --ShockD (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, what specific sources with relation to the article under discussion, Words of Farewell, did you think were reliable and substantive? --Bejnar (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What specific sources do you think are reliable and substantive with a reputation for fact-checking? --ShockD (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 12:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The answer is that with regard to Words of Farewell I found none. Of the three cited in the article, (1) AFM Records is not an independent source, it is the label for Words of Farewell. (2) metal-archives.com is nothing more than a directory listing. (3) "Interview with Words Of Farewell" from The Grim Towere is an interview, see the discussion at the essay WP:Interviews for the infirmaties of interviews. As to others, listing of lyrics such as at darylyrics is not one, neither are PR releases like thee one at metalstorm. If you mean other than in reference to Words of Farewell, that question really isn't relevant here, but in general see things like the book Guida al Nuovo Progressive Rock 1990-2008. --Bejnar (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If I can cite sources in foreign languages would it be a problem if I just copy the sources from the German article then? --ShockD (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Copying without evaluation is not proper. See WP:Citing sources: Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself. Citing less than reliable sources is problematic. --Bejnar (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's there and it hasn't been marked for deletion then this means it's reliable enough. Unless we're applying WP:Double standards again. --ShockD (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No double standard. Everything is subject to review, allowing time between reviews for conditions to change, tempers to cool, etc. See, for example, WP:RELIST. Your statement If it's there and it hasn't been marked for deletion then this means it's reliable enough. is patently false as WP:Afd demonstrates everyday.  This encyclopaedia is primarily staffed by volunteers, who are not everywhere at once. That is why at WP:Afd we focus on the sprcific article in front of us and not on WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Bejnar (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is all wrong. I have created enough articles to know that not everything is reviewed, even in years. Not that it matters... --ShockD (talk) 13:24, 19 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.