Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vernian Process

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. --Coredesat 04:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vernian Process

Has released two albums and two EPs, but as his myspace says, they're all self-published on Lulu.com ([1]). Doesn't show up on Amazon or Discogs, and has no media mentions whatsoever. Just one guy who happens to have released some of his own music, but has no third-party reliable sources to support writing anything about him. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like a self-promotional piece more than an informative article. Even in articles on more widely known bands they do not typically post sizable graphics of all their album covers. I don't know if this violates wikipedia's policy but it seems more like an advert.

Now what's this all about then? If you guys want to delete this article. Whatever I don't really care. I mainly added it because someone else had mentioned my project in the list of steampunk works article. So I wanted to create a basic encyclopedic entry for this site. I will admit that perhaps the inclusion of cover art came off as advertising so I removed them. I don't know what requires my project to be considered notable? Especially since it's mostly free. Does one have to sell their work to be considered notable?--FACT50 20:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Though it does read like an advert and needs some work to meet up to Wikipedia's standards, I believe it should be kept because Wikipedia is not paper. It is important to note that WP:Music is simply a guideline and not policy.

  • Debate Further. Inventm 01:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I have edited the article into a more encyclopedic style. I agree that it did read a bit like an advertisement (which I really wasn't intending). Like I mentioned above, I was so surprised to find a reference to this project on the steampunk related articles, so I just threw a page up. I have some collaborations that I am currently working on with Attrition's Martin Bowes and Jill Tracy. Should I not include those in the article, as they have not been released yet? Also should I link the interviews and reviews that exist of my work? Thanks. --FACT50 02:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 03:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC which I'm perfectly happy to use as a guideline in cases like this. Move from Lulu to a label and it might be different. --Dhartung | Talk 06:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, clearly fails WP:Music, EOS. Eusebeus 09:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
In order to be considered a notable band/music project, you have to be signed? What happened to artistic freedom? I guess being the first musician to tackle an otherwise untapped musical genre (see: steampunk) isn't notable enough? So as long as I just keep giving my music away for free, and avoid working with record labels, my work will never be considered notable? If that is the case I'll delete the article myself. I don't want to have anything to do with such a fascist site. --FACT50 09:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
it's not about being fascist. If there are enough reliable, independent sources (like music magazines or prominent websites) writing about an unsigned artist, then they're taking note of them. If they're signed to a label, obviously at least the label has taken note of them. But, if we don't have these guidelines, we can end up with articles based on what every kid in a garage has had published in his friends' blog about himself. It's about having reliable, sourced information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes I understand that, and I understand why you don't want every garage band listed on the site. However, reliable sources have written about this project. I mean as far as music in this genre, it doesn't get much more official than if Mick Mercer has written about it multiple times. He is the author of pretty much every book on the Gothic/Darkwave/Ethereal subculture. This project has also been featured in print media, that is available nationally. Nothing like SPIN, or any major magazines. You kind of have to be signed or tour year round to be noticed on a large scale. But whatever, I know that I have created something genuinely unique. It just sucks that the worlds free encyclopedia doesn't include things unless they are recognized nationally. Even if there are other music projects (i.e. Abney Park (band)) that have been inspired by this project who have valid wikipedia articles. Yet are also independent artists. --FACT50 08:52, 30 October 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.