Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Be Persecuted

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Be Persecuted

Be Persecuted (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Only one record released on a notable label, and no/very limited third party coverage. I don't know if I should count the bad review as a third party, but, it's a bad review nonetheless. They have done no international tours or recieved any online attention other than a few fan sites and a myspace page. Delete Undeath (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

C5—They released one full-length album under more important indie label (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). No Colours Records has been founded in 1993 and released many notable albums mainly in black metal, National Socialist black metal, extreme metal genres (including Graveland, Nargaroth, Dimmu Borgir, Rob Darken's Lord Wind and Infernum, Nocturnal Nortum—see Discogs and WP article for more).
C7—By analazing Chinese metal bands at Encyclopaedia Metallum we can conclude that is the one of the first black metal group from China with studio album under notable label. Biography at the label website claims it is the first great black metal act from China, although, it is not a third-party source and cannot be used as reference.

Online attention should not be decisive in this case due to the nature of non-mainstream black metal scene. Bad review has been deleted. Visor (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. WP:MUSIC requires 2 or more albums on significant labels, not 1, and Metal Archives isn't a reliable independent source, nor is their label's website. Either online or printed coverage would be fine. Sadly, both are lacking.--Michig (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels. No Colours Records seems to be an indie label. Metal Archives as a reference in my argumentation for C7 above can be a good source for knowing how many Chinese black metal bands are, and how many of them released full-length albums. It has not been included in article as a source, but as an external link. Both label websites provides basic informations about years of group had been formed, names of band members and dates of albums. Since the band has neither published online biography, nor official website, these two label links should be acceptable for such basic infos. Visor (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Assuming No Colours is sufficient as a label, the band would still need to have released 2 albums on the label to pass C5. The issue is notability, and without significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the band, that isn't satisfied yet. The label bios are ok for verifying basic information as long as they're not the sole sources for the article.--Michig (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
But I can see OR operator in C5. Isn't that "2 albums in major label or 1 album in indie label"? Visor (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
No. It's two or more albums on a major label OR one OF the more important indie labels, i.e. the label must be a major or an important indie, and there must be 2 or more albums.--Michig (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
My translation mistake... All I can say about band's notability—undoubtedly, it is notable in Chinese black metal scene. The problem is to find a proper reference claiming its notability. Metal Archives clearly says that the band is one of the first black metal band in the country with notable label contract, but it cannot be used as a reference in the article. They also have coverage in printed media—extreme metal magazine Dragonland. But in this case, I have changed my vote from keep to Delete unless referenced. By referenced, I mean assertion of notability referenced by reliable source. Visor (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of secondary sources, chart rankings and awards. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 18:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I would agree with deletion due to lack of secondard references and no major chart listing or music industry awards to warrent notability. Maybe redo the article in a few years after they have had additional press and obtained a significant award. C. Williams (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2008 (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.