Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Under the Shadow

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 of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Under the Shadow

MySpace band with no assertion of notability. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why this was deleted. It is indeed a band, and if you go to their site they actually do have music.

And I have seen shorter, less informative, wikis such as the Vicarious Visions article.

But, this band is real, and I have verification of their actual identities. Also, I am most definately not one of the band members my name is Mario Lucero, and I have know the members of said band. but, they are a real band and others have seen them and they have developed a small fanbase. Just check around their myspace. Smile Lee | 2006-05-21 19:22 UTC

  • Comment. Looking at the fact the Smile Lee for some reason had a comment here before anyone had a chance to AfD the article, it would seem that it may have been previously deleted. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It was up for deletion previously, and before I had a chance to comment it was deleted. I have since expanded the article to be more informative, but I didn't delete the AfD warning. And, it isn't a myspace band, they are a local band from New Mexico. They just happened to have opened a MySpace, and is the only official page by them. Smile Lee | 2006-05-21 19:30 UTC
  • Comment. By MySpace band, I mean that MySpace seems to be primary provider of any recognition or search engine hits they have. You've given no reason that they are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Also, please sign comments with ~~~~ -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. They are worth noting because they have developed a fanbase, and are beginning to become recognized. Smile Lee | 19:36, 21 May 2006
  • Comment. They must meet these criteria, which they do not appear to do. You also need sources to prove that they have met said criteria. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. What about:

Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. Smile Lee | 19:43, 21 May 2006

They don't seem old enough to have created pieces that are used as standards. For an extreme example, that would be more along the lines of Stairway to Heaven. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I forgot to mention "Your Grace". It is now in the article... my bad lol. That is the song that is standard, you can hear it in most SDA churches during Song Service.
  • Delete - no touring, no album, article admits lack of notability; The band is seldom known outside of their territory. The much vaunted myspace page has 483 views. Mine has more and was started a fortnight later. Ac@osr 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment They have had shows, and isn't that the point of a local band to be noted locally. If you go outside of the gaming community most people wouldn't know Shigeru Miyamoto. Under the Shadow is gaining popularity within New Mexico, and with "Your Grace" within the SDA Church. Smile Lee | 19:55, 21 May 2006
  • Comment. Miyamoto is known world-wide by many people. A small band known locally to some people within that region is not notable. The Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, and doesn't include every little group of people everywhere on the planet; it only includes those things which are notable. There's a reason the criteria on WP:Music exist. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment And I know you can't have every little band, but this is the band that wrote "Your Grace". This is their most notable song, if you go to a Seventh Day Adventist church you will probably hear the song in their service. Smile Lee | 20:01, 21 May 2006
  • Comment - Google search for "Under The Shadow", "Your Grace" and "Seventh Day Adventist". [1]. Enough said. Ac@osr 20:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Completely non-notable band- even their MySpace doesn't have that many friends. -- Kicking222 20:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. You can't find all worship songs, their artist(s), and the church it's most commonly used with and come up with results. Search for "Jesus, how I Love Thee" "Southern Baptist" and you'll see what I mean, or even try baptist, and you won't find the song. Smile Lee | 20:11, 21 May 2006
  • Delete Completely non-notable band- even their MySpace doesn't have that many friends. They have no record label, and the article doesn't state that they've released an album. Enough said. -- Kicking222 20:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an up and coming band. They seem to have merit in saying what they are saying and also who cares if their MySpace doesn't have many friends. They even said in their article they aren't that well known yet. So at least give the article a chance. And plus they at least have 10 or so songs listed. That gives them some merit.

Monkeyfloop

  • Delete, as the above comments make perfectly clear. "Up and coming" bands are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Only established bands should be here. Wikipedia is not in the business of free advertising. Please see WP:MUSIC. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not advertising anything. Who would use an online encyclopedia for advertisement? And if they do, they wouldn't do it about a band that they aren't even part of. I have headrd their music, and I think they are worthy of note. Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 02:27 UTC
  • Delete - Up and coming bands are not notable. They have to have been already up and have come already. Can there be a CSD where an article has the phrase "up and coming"? Wickethewok 23:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Also - can't this be speedied for reposted content? Wickethewok 23:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete For reasons stated above. DVD+ R/W 23:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept"

I think this article should be kept because they are a growing band, they also have good music, meaningful lyrics, and have a fanbase. Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 02:27 UTC

    • Comment - "meaningful lyrics" and "good music" are not criteria. It would be absurd to keep this article based on such opinions. Also, having a fanbase is not meaningful criteria either. You must have a substantial fanbase. Wickethewok 03:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Must I say this again, "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept."

That comes from the WP:MUSIC. Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 04:13 UTC

  • Comment. Right, it's open to interpretation based on the particular situation at hand. However, in this particular situation I and the others who've said "delete" have not seen any reason why the criteria should not be used in this case. You havn't really presented any either. There are sooooooo many "up and coming bands" out there; besides the hearsay about some church using their songs, what have these guys done that any of the others havn't to deserve an article? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I never said that they are better than anyone else, other up and coming bands can probably have wikis too. Also, the Seventh Day Adventist church is a world wide denomination. I am not a part of their religion, organized religion is not for me. But, that is more of a side note. Other bands can have wikis, it is never stated that they can't.

^Suggestion I think the criterion for a local band could be:

  • They have more than 4 songs made and have had at least one play on a regional radio station.
  • They have appeared in a live performance as a band and performed works of their own on stage as a group.
  • They have song samples on hand.
  • Some form of band owned website, the band owned website needs to have info on the band, and it's member(s).
  • And lyrics on hand, and the lyrics must be understandable with thoughtfulness obviously put into them.
  • They must also have plans to expand outside of their region.

Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 04:30 UTC

    • Comment - These would qualify every band in the world. Heck, even I would qualify for that... Wickethewok 05:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment again. You're not comprehending something very important here. The Wikipedia doesn't just keep articles on every topic under the sun because it can. The Articles for Deletion process is largely to get rid of articles of subjects that don't have enough notability. You seem to want the band to get a wiki article just because it can. If that worked, my left foot would have an article (and I must admit it did; for a few minutes, and not of my own creating). Read WP:NOT and WP:Notability. The Wikipedia seeks to have articles only on things of encyclopedic value. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There is a difference though, your left foot hasn't written music, formed a band, played in front of an audience, or been played on the radio. Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 04:52 UTC
    • Comment - Well, he's given as much proof of notability for his left foot as you have for your band... Wickethewok 05:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's not my band!

I have given reasons for notability; They have more than 10 songs made, they have appeared in a live performances of some sort, they have song samples on hand, a band owned website, they have plans to expand to become a more nationally known band, continued to get more shows at various places, the song entitled "Your Grace" is becoming a notable worship song within' the Seventh Day Adventist church, lyrics are on hand, and links.

Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 05:17 UTC

    • Comment. I performed in front of a rather large audience during a school play when I was young, have written several (poor) short stories, and plan to become Emperor of the Solar System. Again, you've provided no good evidence that "Your Grace" provides them with any notablity, and besides that all you've said is that they plan to become notable. Many small bands perform in front of local audiences, but that doesn't mean they're of any slight encyclopedic notability. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Their lyrics aren't that bad, and their music is pretty good. And your feet didn't do the acting, you did, and your feet don't plan to to become Emperor of the Solar System I do... I mean, You Do. And I'm sure people weren't looking at you feet during the play, they were looking at you. And you can write about yourself, in your talk page. And I'm sure the school play went swimmingly :). And writing stories and songs is different, I definately couldn't do it lol.

It (Notablity) differs, however, from fame and importance; while all articles on "famous" and "important" subjects are notable, not all notable subjects are famous or important. (WP:Notability) Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 05:53 UTC

  • The Article is also not an indiscriminate collection of information

Quoted from WP:NOT

1. It doesn't List of Frequently Asked Questions.

2. It doesn't list loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons.

3. It doesn't use loosely accociated information on small details like numbers, addresses, etc.

4. It isn't a Memorials.

5. It isn't a news reports.

6. Does not have genealogical entries, or phonebook entries.

7. It does not advertise future showings of the band, and does not contain any promos.

8. It isn't an instruction manual.

9. And it is most definately not an Internet guide. Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 05:59 UTC

  • Comment. We're not discussing how good their lyrics or music are, but how notable. Notable. Notable. Notable. Notable. Notable. You still havn't said why they're any more notable than every other band that has aspirations of making it big. Your only piece of support for notability so far is that the church whose name I forget is using their song, but you've given no evidence of that. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment

It (Notablity) differs, however, from fame and importance; while all articles on "famous" and "important" subjects are notable, not all notable subjects are famous or important. (WP:Notability) Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 06:05 UTC

  • Comment. Does not alter your lack of supporting arguments for notability. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Oh and about Seventh-day Adventists they are one of the largest protestant denominations worldwide. And you've never heard of them? Well you can read up on them, they are an interesting religion. And it doesn't change my arguements. But it does show that you don't need to be importantyou just need to have done something that interesting and knowledgable. Plus, there is argument based on what notability is. But, most of the time it is from a reputable source. And what more reputible source than the people, fans and critics, which their myspace is full of. A secondary source can; be a large group of people more than 100 in number, a recognized newpaper, and/or many other sources. And the source I have used is a group of people. Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 06:18 UTC
  • Almost Done, but not defeated! I guess I'll leave this up to the mods from here on out, I hope I have made my points clear. And if I haven't please message me about the subject, either here on wiki, or in my e-mail at: mystic_sonic@msn.com

Well, may God Bless wiki and everyone involved, as it is quite the information database, and if you find my article to be not well written or uncyclopedically written please give me tips on how to fix it. You could, maybe if it isn't too much trouble, even help sort the information by editing the Under the Shadow article to make it better. Or maybe even just send it to cleanup. Smile Lee | 2006-05-22 07:01 UTC

  • Delete small beginning band with insufficient reputation and impact at the moment to justify an article. If they play at churches, then I suggest the info is put into a church article. Tyrenius 13:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong (Reiterated) Keep! This band ,like Smile Lee has said over and over again, has been played on the radio and has preformed in front of an audience. If they were just some random garage band that had written no songs and not preformed then that would be different. They have merit because they are actually a working band. Monkeyfloop

    • Comment. Note that Monkeyfloop has already voiced a Keep in this discussion ;). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment yes i have already voted a keep but i would actually like to see an article be kept on the site. :) Monkeyfloop

  • Thanks

Monkeyfloop for taking my side on this band, I am going to change that vote to a reiterated vote with a strond feeling.

But, I am impressed in Consumed Crustacean's will to keep Wiki a trustworthy site of note, and I do respect that. I can see his decision in deleting this article, he sees it just as another band. But, as I've said; they have a decent-sized fanbase, they have a decent collection of music written by themselves, they have performed at various places, they are sometimes played on M88, and were the creators of the worship song "Your Grace", if you look at the link to their lyrics on the article, you might recognize it. Smile Lee | May 23, 2006; it is now 03:20 (UTC)

  • Delete. I looked at the article and failed to see an assertion that it meets any WP:MUSIC criteria. Vegaswikian 17:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Peta 06:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Utterly insignificant. -- GWO
  • Speedy Delete. Utterly insignificant, fails WP:MUSIC. Grandmasterka 20:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strong Repeated Keep by Smile Lee 03:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Remember I understand that you guys "spend a lot of time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage and feel that notability is required for a band to deserve an article here. Please remember that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; likewise, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion." And I have a HUGE respect for that, it helps make this place, Wiki, a better source for information. Smile Lee 07:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's Look it Up In The Dictionary A dictionary can usually help us understand a word. And the definition for an Encyclopedia is "A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field." Let's look at the word "Comprehensive" which says "So large in scope or content as to include much." Smile Lee 07:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And this article doesn't contain self-research Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. So gathering the information from the Under the Shadow MySpace is a primary source, while Lyric Wiki and M88 are secondary sources. And wiki reports "what other reliable sources have published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate." And a reliable source would be from those primary and secondary sources, and whether or not they are true or false they are still information on the band. Smile Lee 07:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And It Is Not a POV The article also contains no POV on the subject. And if you fellow wikipedians spot any, then edit it. Isn't that what Wiki is, an encyclopedia in which people get together and help it to become more informative and reliable. Smile Lee 07:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Encyclopedia Just because something is not famous does not make it un-noteworthy. If it has the need to have information gathered to those who seek it, then let it be included. The reason an encyclopedia is there, is for people to look at it for reference and knowledge. If someone looks for this information and this article is deleted, that means the person will not find it.Smile Lee 09:14, 27 May 2006 (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.