Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemesea (2nd nomination)
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 for lack of substantial third-party coverage by reliable sources. Sandstein 08:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nemesea
Disputed prod. Concern: "Does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria; no referenced assertion of notability. Previously deleted at AFD. Possible CSD A7 / G4." See Talk:Nemesea#Save Nemesea! for explanation of prod removal. The editor who removed the prod tag cleaned up and expanded the article; it's no longer a speedy candidate but there are still no references to verify that the band meets WP:MUSIC criteria. --Muchness 23:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll bet on a G4. Speedy DeleteRetracted, see below. --Dennisthe2 00:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)- Comment I'm not sure whether the current version is a substantially identical duplicate of the previously deleted article, so G4 may not apply. --Muchness 00:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, figured that and then I saw the talk page a little closer; the talk page would constitute enough for a {{hangon}} I think. Retracted between then and now, but I'll still hold to a Delete. --Dennisthe2 00:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah sorry, didn't notice you'd retracted before I added the hangon tag. --Muchness 01:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, figured that and then I saw the talk page a little closer; the talk page would constitute enough for a {{hangon}} I think. Retracted between then and now, but I'll still hold to a Delete. --Dennisthe2 00:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure whether the current version is a substantially identical duplicate of the previously deleted article, so G4 may not apply. --Muchness 00:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This article needs improvement, but the move to delete is misguided. This band is well-established and popular in Nordic Europe, an integral part of the gothic/symphonic metal scene thriving there. Appropriate Google and established rock reference searches will easily confirm this. I accept that appropriate references need to be added, and given enough time either myself or another editor will add them. This is the third time I have had to defend an article from individuals ignorant of a band and the genre with which they are associated. If these AfDs were raised by those knowledgeable of the field, in this case Symphonic Metal, this would be a reasonable debate, but there is a flaw in the system that allows articles to be removed on the initiative of people who know nothing about the associated genre or anything musical that goes on outside of North America. In short, I resent having to defend knowledge against the unknowledgeable (in the field concerned). I believe that the upgrading of an article, (which is certainly needed in this case) and proving beyond reasonable doubt its worth to the layman should not be to a deadline after which the article is removed. In my last two experiences, justice and the preservation of knowledge triumphed over ignorance, and I hope that experience is repeated with this article, because this is what is at stake. Headshaker 07:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete And the band played on... Major label? No. Multiple albums? No. What part of WP:MUSIC is this supposed to meet? Specialist knowledge of minor regional music subgenres is not required in order to assess inclusion, sources - specifically, multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources - is what's required. Guy (Help!) 10:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have read the "And The Band Played On" section and found it disturbing if not sinister. Is its author seriously suggesting that even if a band makes the cover of Rolling Stone, they would be excluded from Wikipedia because they pushed their luck before they got famous? Would that not make Wikipedia itself vain and arrogant? I would argue that the objective of the enterprise is the preservation of knowledge. If that principle is sacrificed to make a point then mindless bureaucracy has triumphed over reason. Returning to the matter in hand, I will address each "point" in turn:
- The absence of a Major label deal or prolific discography are not the sole criteria: extent of fanbase is also important. Given time it can be demonstrated that this band has a significant European fanbase and therefore are worthy of inclusion.
- Symphonic Metal specifically and the European metal scene generally is not a "minor regional sungenre". Regional yes, but a multi-million dollar regional industry with a massive fanbase. Metal in general is mainstream in Northern Europe. Some knowledge of it is required in order to make a fair judgement of an individual band's significance within it.
- Nemesea has had considerable coverage from the regional rock media of Northern Europe. Given enough time, that can be demonstrated. The AfD came to my attention only 24 hours ago.
- Finally to point out that I have no direct interest in Nemesea, and only have one of their tracks. I have however in a relatively short time learned much about the metal scene in Northern Europe in general and Symphonic Metal in particular, so I know about that of which I speak. Proof will be forthcoming, but I resent having to produce it (again!) just because some individuals in North America know nothing about a scene thriving far from their shores. I am also passionate about the proliferation and defence of knowledge. I plead that a travesty of justice is in danger of being perpetrated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Headshaker (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 January 2007.
- I don't think that's what the article is suggesting - it's pointing at a possible path that the article can take if it keeps popping up. I mean, if this were 20 years ago and you had (say) Toad The Wet Sprocket, if I may name one amongst millions of examples, they would possibly have been rejected before 1991, when their third album (Fear) was released - or possibly later, when it went gold. Point being, local notability doesn't work unfortunately, and thinking it would may get the article killed if they do become popular enough for Rolling Stone. --Dennisthe2 06:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for trying to explain, but by your own last sentence, the cumulative effect is that a band making the cover of Rolling Stone would not have its own article. That is just plain wrong. I know the significance of Toad The Wet Sprocket and as part of a new movement it would also have been wrong if they had been excluded, gold album or not. Regarding "local notability", in the case of Nemesea, we are not talking about a few bier kellers in Amsterdam, but a fanbase across Northern Europe. --Headshaker 07:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have added some references to the Nemesea article as external links and divided them into two sections. The first is "band-sponsored", ie endorsed by the band. The second section consists of references to the band from independent sources such as online magazines. I hope this goes some way to demonstrating that this band are well-known in Northern Europe.--Headshaker 19:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for trying to explain, but by your own last sentence, the cumulative effect is that a band making the cover of Rolling Stone would not have its own article. That is just plain wrong. I know the significance of Toad The Wet Sprocket and as part of a new movement it would also have been wrong if they had been excluded, gold album or not. Regarding "local notability", in the case of Nemesea, we are not talking about a few bier kellers in Amsterdam, but a fanbase across Northern Europe. --Headshaker 07:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that's what the article is suggesting - it's pointing at a possible path that the article can take if it keeps popping up. I mean, if this were 20 years ago and you had (say) Toad The Wet Sprocket, if I may name one amongst millions of examples, they would possibly have been rejected before 1991, when their third album (Fear) was released - or possibly later, when it went gold. Point being, local notability doesn't work unfortunately, and thinking it would may get the article killed if they do become popular enough for Rolling Stone. --Dennisthe2 06:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have read the "And The Band Played On" section and found it disturbing if not sinister. Is its author seriously suggesting that even if a band makes the cover of Rolling Stone, they would be excluded from Wikipedia because they pushed their luck before they got famous? Would that not make Wikipedia itself vain and arrogant? I would argue that the objective of the enterprise is the preservation of knowledge. If that principle is sacrificed to make a point then mindless bureaucracy has triumphed over reason. Returning to the matter in hand, I will address each "point" in turn:
- Keep per the newest articles on the group that have been added and bio's. Someone should merge these links and these articles information into the current article. I will put it on my to do list for next week if the article survives. Good work to whoever tracked down the sources. It should also be noted they did release on a label and the popularity of the group to attract the attention and tour for another group is pretty high. --Nuclear
Zer021:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC) - Comment As of now, the article offers nothing towards WP:BAND. Notability criteria are not interpreted mechanically. However, ignoring criteria in a random and chaotic manner, with no predictability or consistency, is cruel and unusual to those articles that do get deleted for failing the very same criteria to which we'd be turning a blind eye in keeping this. So the question becomes: Does this band have something WP:BANDish, with reliable sources backing it up? Not "established / integral / WP:ILIKEIT / part of something thriving / has fans in different places / uninformed people want to delete". See WP:BAND, very carefully read the paragraph that starts "Also, please keep in mind..." Weregerbil 14:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is very hard for me to respond to most of the above points because I simply can't understand them. Plain English please! I did get the NPA bit, to which the short answer is that my remark that people moving to delete this article are uninformed is not a personal attack but a statement of fact. Unless any of them can tell me that they actually know about the European metal/goth scene, it is perfectly valid for me to question their credibility in attacking articles related to it. If I had accused them of being uninformed generally (which I clearly wasn't) that would have been out of order. If anything they are out of order for failing to assume my good faith. I defend the article out of a sense of right and wrong, not from any personal stake. As a matter of personal morality as opposed to Wikipedia policy dogma, I would never move to delete bands just because I had never heard of them, particularly if relating to whole genres and (major!) regional scenes of which I was previously unaware. On the contrary, I would feel gladdened that I had learned something I didn't know before. I believe passionately in defending knowledge and people's access to it, and I am well within the bounds of politeness and Wikipedia policy to point out that in this case, in the eyes of any reasonable neutral, those judging this article as not worth knowing do not have the credibility to do so.--Headshaker 20:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Having had a good night's sleep, I went back to the Weregerbil's arguments to see if I could make more sense of them with a fresh mind. It was still very hard to read (which is not a personal attack but a statement of fact), but I have the following counter-points to make:
- In the limited time I have had available I have included neutral recognised information sources in the external links to back up the article, so I do not agree that I have offered nothing towards criteria for inclusion.
- The fact that the band are established and well-known within the field of European gothic/symphonic metal is a valid point to make. Researchers into this genre would want to know who the established bands were.
- It is most definitely not valid to counter arguments I never actually used. I have never at any point said that I liked the band. On the contrary, I have already stated that I only had one of their tracks in my possession.
- Not only are policies quoted inappropriately, but in Wikipedia policy itself, in the same set of guidelines as I LIKE IT, it also clearly states that simply quoting policy is not a valid argument, unless it is properly backed up with how the policy is breached.
- Instead of asking ME to chase round looking up all these misused policy articles in order to counter the points, it would have been more useful to neutrals viewing this argument if the relevant passages had been quoted directly here. I couldn't even find the part that started "Also, please bear in mind..."--Headshaker 06:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Having had a good night's sleep, I went back to the Weregerbil's arguments to see if I could make more sense of them with a fresh mind. It was still very hard to read (which is not a personal attack but a statement of fact), but I have the following counter-points to make:
- It is very hard for me to respond to most of the above points because I simply can't understand them. Plain English please! I did get the NPA bit, to which the short answer is that my remark that people moving to delete this article are uninformed is not a personal attack but a statement of fact. Unless any of them can tell me that they actually know about the European metal/goth scene, it is perfectly valid for me to question their credibility in attacking articles related to it. If I had accused them of being uninformed generally (which I clearly wasn't) that would have been out of order. If anything they are out of order for failing to assume my good faith. I defend the article out of a sense of right and wrong, not from any personal stake. As a matter of personal morality as opposed to Wikipedia policy dogma, I would never move to delete bands just because I had never heard of them, particularly if relating to whole genres and (major!) regional scenes of which I was previously unaware. On the contrary, I would feel gladdened that I had learned something I didn't know before. I believe passionately in defending knowledge and people's access to it, and I am well within the bounds of politeness and Wikipedia policy to point out that in this case, in the eyes of any reasonable neutral, those judging this article as not worth knowing do not have the credibility to do so.--Headshaker 20:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment AfD's on notability are not decided by who calls others "uninformed" etc. Please see WP:NPA: there is no excuse for personal attacks. None. Please don't even try. If you attack other editors we'll just think you have run out of rational arguments on the real issue at hand. It truly does you no good.
- AfD's are also not decided by essays on "defending access to information". Those appear regularly here, and are kind of a running joke... Not helpful.
- The outcome of AfD's are decided by policy and guidelines. Instead of "defending information" and speculating on other editors' knowledge please concentrate on WP:RS and WP:BAND.
- "Also, please bear in mind" is the fourth paragraph of WP:BAND. "Established and well known" opinions on talk pages have no importance; explain in the article itself using reliable sources. Weregerbil 15:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, does not meet WP:BAND. Sorry, but I can't find a reason to ignore WP:BAND here. The article has sources that review their only album (which is nothing unusual), some sources are trivial listing, some are written by the band itself. There is no evidence of meeting WP:BAND or some other special condition that WP:BAND doesn't list but would establish notability. Weregerbil 15:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of meeting WP:BAND. If they were notable they would have been covered by some of the mainstream metal magazines, which they don't seem to have been. One Night In Hackney 17:51, 5 January 2007 (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.
