Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood of Angels

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. I took into account the comments that there are other Nox_Arcana albums on Wikipedia, but each article must be considered on its own merits, and this one does not meet notability requirements, and does not have reliable sources as indicated in the discussion. I would be willing to WP:USERFY if an editor wishes to work on the material to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. SilkTork *YES! 00:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood of Angels

edit
Blood of Angels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not a hugely notable album; the article has no RS, and reads like an advert; seems to be an excuse for external links. Plans are afoot to fix up the bands article - which is similar in tone, but the band does meet WP:MUSIC so I'm trying to fix that one rather than delete. But I don't think that this album warrants its own article - not enough facts in RS's to make one. Could have a mention in the band article. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The album is the only one of Nox_Arcana's albums that uses vocals on ever track. Considering NA's work is primarily ambient, I would considering a album this divergent from their normal style fairly notable.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
subjective opinion. to me it reads more like the review at Flames Rising--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that the band does meet WP:MUSIC having meet criteria 2 "Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart." Winter's_Knight peaked at #8 on on the Billboard chart.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the Nox_Arcana entry has been supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians. Deleting this entry would undermine the integrity of the Nox_Arcana entry and the overall Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians project.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This seems to be another typical example of a promotional article from the Michelle Belanger series.
Michelle Belanger is a self-promotional artist and a recognized spammer in the Wikipedia, having been warned many times already on countless edits and articles promoting herself and by the consecutive use and abuse of suck-puppetry. Her own article on Wikipedia has been deleted and can be consulted to help in the decision of this deletion here under discussion - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michelle_Belanger.
Curiously enough, the only user so far endorsing the keep of this article is User:SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy who's history logs of Wikipedia contributions show a nearly exclusive history of edits related with promoting Belanger's things. Even after being warned, she continued the disruptive editing that earned her, in April 2009, a preventive 24h ban for promotional and disruptive editing related with the non-notable Belanger content. Surprisingly (not) she appears again in this Wikipedia:AfD that related with an article with promotional tones and not really enough notability as an album to be considered encyclopedic. A nearly full article trying, again, to promote Belanger's fake notability. Suspicious to say the least.
I was brought to this Wikipedia:AfD after checking User:SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy showing up again on an Wikipedia:AfD that was asked for nomination by myself: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zsuzsanna_Budapest. This brought up immediate red flags since the article I nominated for deletion makes extensive usage of links related with the spammer Michelle Belanger and pointing to sites directly related with her, or her own property. Magically again, User:SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy showed up trying to prevent deletion. Seems like she keeps a watch on every Belanger-related article to ensure the promotion that she was so advised over and over to let go, even after Wikipedia admins deciding that Belanger was not notable to be used as a source or reference on Wikipedia. All of this just brings back the old concerns of sock-puppetry and self-promotion in everything related with Michelle Belanger.
Wikipedia can never and will never support such attitudes. This is an encyclopedia, not a free resource for advertisement. MarkChase (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And similarity, magically MarkChase, any references Belanger you are out to delete, just as exclusively you have been promoter of Aset Ka material. Of course the difference between you and I has been that I have been engaging in editing and community discourse not related Belanger or Aset Ka. And again, leveling accusations of puppetry are not appropriate in general discussion. If you feel I am a puppet, report it to the proper individuals. If you feel bringing up discussion points to consider is promotion, report that as well.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No external sources, no claims made for notability, fails WP:NALBUMS. Note that several of the other Nox Arcana albums should be listed for deletion as well, as they also lack notable external coverage. LK (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is no longer promotional; now, it's only not notable. I see no need for a merge or a redirect. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unsigned 65.189.101.217 has removed significant portions of this article that describe the type of music and theme of the album. The text was not promotional; it was descriptive. This user has also been warned several times about vandalism on their talk page. I am reverting to the earlier material (keeping the Afd notice, though, until its decided). And I'll see what can be found for 3rd party sources. I'm sure there's an interview or something that can be found. This album is listed with All Music. As for notability, this album is certainly notable for the fact it is one of 10 albums by Nox Arcana, and as earlier stated the band is on Billboard. It seems whoever is deleting the material has a bone to pick with the lyricist, but that shouldn't be grounds for deletion. Ebonyskye (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm back after I looked around for online interviews with Michele Belanger. I found many articles about her books and TV appearances. There are some interviews with Nox Arcana who mention the album and working with Belanger but I'm not sure if anything really pertains to the wiki article. What I mean is that the wiki article is just the facts, description, credits, etc from the cd itself (though rewritten so as not to be a copyright issue). There is one line about Belanger's four-octave range, and that appears in an interview with Nox Arcana and also in the Flame's Rising review mentioned already. If anything, maybe this article should be downgraded to stub, but I am against total annihilation. Anyway, here's some of what I found. Some are grouped here [1] and here's one that mentions the album before its release [2](see last paragraph). I'm afriad that's all I could dig up on my lunch hour. Ebonyskye (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, sorry, just one more point. I think this album and lyricist would qualify for notability as per the "Others" music guideline Due to her books, she gets a fairly good amount of TV coverage, radio and podcasts and seems to have a high profile in the goth subculture and fetish subculture. I think it's fair to say that Michelle Belanger "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture." (despite that the album is a footnote) and meets notability for that reason. Ebonyskye (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it also seems that some of the voters for deleting have some kind of hidden agenda or mission. Note that ZombieCow deleted [3] the ref for Nox Arcana's Billboard ranking after it was mentioned above. I have since replaced it. The user also removed a description of the style of music, nothing promotional, only another user's input on describing the musical style. These actions seem more disruptive than helpful. Any more and I'll request an admin to step in. Ebonyskye (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at [4] you can clearly see that the ref was added after the undo-ing (if that's even a verb ;-) ). My apologies - I should have researched the billboard albums myself, a fault which I will try to avoid in the future. There is also no hidden agenda on my part - I just removed the unsourced statements. -- (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment--Ebony and others, I have restored the article by letting stand only the information that can be verified. That Nox Arcana "is on Billboard" (what does that even mean?) is not relevant, unless that statement means that this album charted and achieved a Billboard ranking. The article was chockfull of entirely unverified POV statements, and WP is an encyclopedia. I mean, "with the vocals rising and falling from ethereal choirs to brooding, primal-sounding chants," from what reliable source did that come? And by the way, if you are now finding the sources for those statements, does that not imply they were made up out of whole cloth in the first place? The two sources you referred to above, they are hardly from RS either. So, if you find those sources to make such claims, feel free to add source and claims--but reverting just because you say you can find those sources at some later point is not the way to go. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply--ZombieCow, my apologies for my earlier assumptions on your part. No harm done.
--Drmies, it has already been established that Nox Arcana are on Billboard. If you don't know what that means, it is a recognition by Billboard Magazine (a very well established music magazine in the USA) which lists the Top 10 albums for a given year and category.
I have whittled down the statements. But the description of a person's vocal style or musical style is not pov, it is simply a description (rise and fall of a high to low vocal range, ethereal as a musical genre, primal sounding drums as opposed to drums in a marching band). Likewise, the theme of the cd is already referenced by the band site and the cd itself. It need not be tagged a third time. You are welcome to edit (I would accept suggestions as to how to improve the article) but removing credits and what is already established as fact is just rude.
Unlike Nox Arcana's other releases, which are primarily instrumental with minimal narratives, these songs feature both lyrical and musical content. is a fact.
This is the sixth of seven full-length albums that Nox Arcana recorded in three years. also a fact, if you only took the time to count.
Please do not remove the wiki links again [5]. You cannot claim something is not ref'd when it was you who removed the reference.
There are more ways to provide a ref besides placing ref tags. Info can be referenced from the actual cd, from the band site, and it is not always mandatory to place that info into a ref tag, especially if it would be redundant and is wiki-linked to other wiki articles. Thanks. Ebonyskye (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that someone can be "on Billboard" is news to me. But then, what do I know about English grammar. Or what do I know about WP:OR? So their music is ethereal and high, or whatever, that is a fact and not original research? You confuse "fact" with "judgment" (what you call ethereal I may call, well, dull), and you confuse "truth" with "verifiability." This is an encyclopedia, and I would hope you'd adjust your praise of this album accordingly. Oh, I wish you had noted that the information which could be reliably obtained from the CD was still there. All I removed was fanpraise and original research. Did I say delete yet? Drmies (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW, you might consider an opening sentence which states what the topic of this article is--an album by a musical group. Really, encyclopedic writing should start with the basics. Oh, and I forgot--you continue to confuse blogs with reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Very good point, Drmies. I have added a statement that it is a musical collaboration. I'm not sure what blogs you mean. I believe the refs used were for a major publisher Llewellyn, and a well established online magazine, FlamesRising.com, which has thousands of reviews and interviews with major publishers. Perhaps the US refs are unknown to you, including the usage of the word ON, as being "on" a website, or "on" a well known list of top ten albums (that is how it is said in English). I really see no reason that you would even want to continue editing this particular article, since you obviously do not like the album, band, singer, whatever (considering you call it "dull"). It does smack of bias. Have a good day. Ebonyskye (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, maybe Flames Rising is not a blog, but it doesn't count as a reliable source--it's very much a fanzine. Either way, even if it's the Wall Street Journal, it doesn't say anything of substance at all about this album, only that Belanger is on it--it doesn't even mention the title. So all it can verify is the album's existence, and no one doubts that. As for Llewellyn, if you think that a publisher's blurb counts as a reliable source then you don't know what an encyclopedia is. But there again, all that that "reference" establishes is that she wrote some books, which has no bearing on the album at all, and only serves to re-introduce a non-notable author into the Wikipedia. You are trying to establish notability by association, and the only "source" you have left is the liner notes. The album is NOT released on a notable label, it didn't chart, it didn't win any major awards...it's not notable. Finally, about "bias": that's a ludicrous charge. I used "dull" as another unverifiable adjective, just like your "descriptions" of the music (which you called "fact," but which you wisely did not reintroduce to the article). Anyone who knows English knows what the word "may" implies: possibility, not fact. If anyone here is biased it's you--producing an article full of fancruft while attempting to delude WP standards. OK, I do have a bias: I don't want articles on non-notable topics taking up server space. As for English (US or British), "on Billboard" does not mean "in the list of best-selling albums on Billboard's Top Holiday Chart," which is what you intended, no doubt.

Drmies (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply Considering Wikipedia is full of artists and musicians who have a story behind their music, I don't see why this would be any different. In this case, I believe it is notable because the artist in question is also a legitimate published author who also happens to be a professional singer. Additionally, this CD is not a "unknown" self-published venture, so I'd definitely say it qualifies. Recommend if article does end up getting deleted, to vet Wikipedia and clear out other entries of a similar nature across the board. (unsigned comment was added by User:24.196.76.162 diff  Chzz  ►  21:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 00:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to Drmies' idea of a Reliable Source, that would basically mean vetting every single album and every band that does NOT have a listing on a major music chart, like Billboard for example (although Drmies scoffed at the Billboard Charts). How about bands that advertise in the magazines they get interviews with? Do we accept those magazines as unbiased RS when the band has purchased ad space in the same issue? I could spend the next 6 years deleting bands from Wiki for much less. Ebonyskye (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, my idea for a reliable source comes from WP:RS. Yours seems to come from my freshman students: it was on the internet so it is true. And I never scoffed at Billboard, in fact, I refer to it myself in articles on albums that I write. I scoffed at nothing--I merely pointed out that your grammar was incomprehensible and misrepresented what Billboard was. You made the suggestion that Billboard would have given some special recognition to your band, when the only fact was that the album charted. I don't care how you spend the next 6 years, but if you aim to spend them here you would do well to acquaint yourself with the guidelines for this place. (And why would you think that I would think ads are reliable? Seriously, where do you get that from? Was that something someone said on some blog?) Drmies (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite the opposite. I think bands that pay for ads in certain small press genre magazines (say under 3,000) get preferred treatment, therefor the "interview" is not as reliable as it might otherwise be had no money changed hands. That's not always the case, but it is something to consider. And a lot of fanzines have evolved into well respected publications that may be considered expert on a specific genre or subculture. Just because a publication is a fan of a genre or topic does not make it unreliable. One would not necessarily reference the NY Times or Wall Street Journal for information on a goth band or an independent horror movie. It matters not that a source exists only online. Many print publications have stopped printing hard copies (or don't print as many) and now publish their content online. And self-published sources are accepted when it is written by the author and concerns opinion, such as the description of a style of music or summary of a story/theme Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion.
    • As for my grammar, there was nothing wrong with what I stated. You were the only person here who supposedly had an issue with the band being "on" the Billboard charts, (and I was not even the first person here to point that out), yet you were using grammar as an excuse to scoff at the inclusion of the chart ranking. I honestly don't know why you are crusading for the removal of this article. Prior to deleting everything in it, it was rather informative.
    • In any case, the contested pov content regarding "ethereal" (despite being only a descriptive statement of style/genre) has been removed, so the article really does not warrant deletion. As for notability, the band itself meets Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles#2 and Wikipedia:MUSIC#Others#5 and Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums.2C_singles_and_songs In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Ebonyskye (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other talk pages on this issue

edit

For the sake of this discussion, please note some comments have spilled over into other talk pages having to do with this topic.

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blood_of_Angels&oldid=1091561428"