Draugiem.lv (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

The reasons given for the original deletion has no basis, the reason being a claim that the article is an advertisement (or rather, the claim that it is an advertisement has just as much force as a claim that it is not advertisement, i.e., none, if you really like Law), however the subject of the article is the most visited site in Latvia (NE Europe). Also I would like to point out that I nominate the article for undeletion not for eligibility to write it anew, that is, to say, I'm not planning to write it completely from scratch, I think it was fine, although I haven't seen it since it's always being deleted, if it really has no references I can add a sentence about popularity and a link to alexa.com rankings. Lysis rationale ( talk) 14:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Lysis rationale ( talk) 14:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• My, we don't often get old VFD discussions anymore. Since the VFD was unanimous, and the article at the time truly terrible, obviously endorse that close. The February 2007 version was somewhat better, but still speedy deletable - though I'd have chosen A7 over G4. It has been more than a year since then, so you ought to be able to write a new article making the claim made above. However, alexa.com rankings aren't really relevant. What we really want is for you to use reliable sources that are independent of the site for the new article, and to reference them. So, endorse deletions, encourage a new article. GRBerry 15:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• There shouldn't be a problem getting a copy of the article in your userspace to work on (say, at User:Lysis rationale/Draugiem.lv), if you want that. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 16:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• No !vote here, but this was discussed already on May 10th. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 23:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • And the exact same userfication advice was given. And ignored. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 05:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply

The cult of psychedelic murder (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Good evening, morning or afternoon - wherever you may be.. I have come to contest a deletion (as you may have guessed). pardon the lack of punctuation but it is past 2am for me and I have never joined wikipedia until tonight, let alone made a deletion review request.

i received an email a few hours ago asking for my help. it was from somebody who was making a page for a band that happen to be a part of my record label - California group "The Cult of Psychedelic Murder". Having read through the notability guidlines I began to create my comment on the talk page, however - before I could complete my comment the page had been deleted. unsure what to do i followed a few links and found 'deletion review'. So below this line I'm going to paste in what would have been my case on the article's 'talk' page, following the initial discussion (for context) - my comment is the very last:

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Scary dragon atop the hill ( talk) 23:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Scary dragon atop the hill ( talk) 22:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)==New Album in 2009== from what i hear the band has takin a break and is not working on any other projects.... reply

Can you prove that the band is notable? So far, it doesn't seem like they meet the guidelines for WP:MUSIC. Rwiggum ( ^Talk/ _Contrib) 22:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

ok well, this band may not be a major main stream act. but they still are a musical group with 2 albums released through green leaf records. i happen to see this group live before as well. in fresno califorina. and this happens to be a real 2 man band. after there last album battle of the harvest im not sure if they are working on any new stuff until 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scary dragon atop the hill ( talk • contribs) 22:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

this is link has more info on the group [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scary dragon atop the hill ( talk • contribs) 22:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't doubt that the group is real, but I doubt that they are notable enough to qualify for a wikipedia page. A google search only brings up 73 hits. Rwiggum ( ^Talk/ _Contrib) 22:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

you have a point on the google search, let me remind you how i found out about this band. they mainly release there musical free via soulseek. bit torrent. i found alot of there music being traded. i made this page not because im a fan, but because their works should be noticed.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a place to promote a non-notable entity. For more information, check out WP:SOAPS. Rwiggum ( ^Talk/ _Contrib) 23:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

who says this band is not notable? it sounds like that is your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scary dragon atop the hill ( talk • contribs) 23:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, a fairly standard means of determining notability can be found at WP:BAND. Please try not to get so defensive, I'm just trying to help. Rwiggum ( ^Talk/ _Contrib) 23:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Just because you are not a fan or have never heard of this band does not mean you should delete it. yes, this group is underground, and the reason for the is in all the words if you listen to battle of the harvest. as far as i know alot of people listen to this group. battle of the harvest was released in a CD form in Califorina in most smoke shops. there is actually a strong following in the "real world" compared to the world wide web. i strongly feel this article should stay. Scary dragon atop the hill ( talk) 23:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I Understand that, but if there isn't any substantive content to prove the band's notability, then they do not belong on Wikipedia. Again, please stop being so defensive. The guidelines for deletion and notability can be found on WP:BAND if you have any more questions. Rwiggum ( ^Talk/ _Contrib) 23:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Well I think this really comes down to semantics and what you define as 'notable' - media attention or actual public awareness?

From Wikipedia's notability guide:

"It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable."

Well this is true so far. My own site (certainly an independent source, we're on a different continent) has published numerous records, lyrics and images from the band in question. In fact they gave me some more tracks tonight, so there's even more to come.

"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Well GLR certainly isn't one of THE more important labels - but bear in mind there are a lot of them out there. However, our first release was four years ago and we have just over 20 records from over 8 different artists featured at our site ( http://greenleafrecords.com). Again, this ambiguous word 'notable' comes into play - well for a lot of people Psychedelic Murder ARE notable. I don't have my figures here with me but our site (though not long established) averages well over 100 hits a day - and Psychedelic Murder are arguably one of our best acts, so thats a lot of potential notability there, even if just in-passing.

You must also bear in mind that we distribute free cd's almost everywhere we go - so thats already a fairly good demographic, at least a few hundred people in the south-west UK will own a P-Murder CD (consider that their first CD offering only came in November of last year). Even more people will own the mp3s - not just in the UK, but globally - as they're more easily attained via the website.

"Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability."

Have you heard this music? Its not like anything anyone's done before - for a start its self-produced (ok, no biggie) but its a lucid blend of hip-hop, psychedelic rock, folk-rock, surf-blues and general experimentism - they prominently represent this sound because there is no one else (to my knowledge) actually succeeding in doing what they do as well as they do. GLR itself is a completely fresh approach to making music in general, and P-Murder are at the forefront of that, so.. I suppose it comes down to that ambiguity again; it is quite undeground - we dont send press releases to tv stations or the radio because we dont want our music played there. So it is somewhat of an anomole as far as Wiki rules go (IMO).

Have I helped make the case for these guys so far?

Alex@GLRuk Green Leaf Records ( talk) 01:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted. To answer the above, there are a few issues here: first, we need reliable, independent references in notable publications - newspapers, magazines, radio, etc. - that are specifically about the band to indicate that it is in fact going to pass our WP:MUSIC guidelines. With 73 Google hits, that doesn't seem to exist. Stuff posted on your website does not count as a reliable source, as you and yout site have a conflict of interest in this regard. Unless more people than you folks are talking about the band in notable sources, it is not yet notable. Sorry. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn The user above is asserting notability and so speedy deletion is inappropriate. These new editors should be allowed reasonable time to prepare the article which can go to AFD in th usual way if it still seems inadequate. Colonel Warden ( talk) 10:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The article, as it was written, made A7. Whether or not an article can be written about the subject is irrelevant to this and doesn't need to be discussed at all here, the page isn't salted. If you have reliable sources to verify the notability of the band, then have it. However, I do highly suggest you take a look at our guidelines on conflicts of interest. Cheers. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 11:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Deletion—First off, WP:CSD says "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead", so to answer Colonel Warden, the fact that this discussion is happening doesn't mean the deletion needs to be overturned soley based on policy. In fact, even adding the {{hangon}} tag does not ensure the page won't be speedied; the hangon tag states "Note that this request is not binding, and the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria…"" So, does the page meet the CSD criteria? IMHO yes. There is a total lack of third-party sources on this band, and therefore they fail the notability test. A note to Green Leaf, using your own website as a source is not a reliable source, as it is self published. I understand that you like it, and indeed many may like it, but that's not a substitute for outside proof of notability. Livitup ( talk) 12:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Can the nominator please explain why he chose to ignore the instruction on this page saying "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle ( talk) 12:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, the nominator did ask me to return the page and I declined, for approximately the reasons you read here; you can read the entire lengthy exchange on my talk page. I wasn't aware that the page had been submitted to deletion review, but I'm not surprised. I'm going to let this process run without my further input; I've already had my say about this page. Accounting4Taste: talk 13:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I only saw the notice that the page had been submitted to DRV rather than any discussion, but I'll trust that the discussion exists if you say it does. Endorse deletion per Livitup. Stifle ( talk) 14:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse...it never ceases to amaze me how many bands don't want publicity from other sources, yet think they justify an article. Even the most obscure of notable acts get covered in the local indy papers or the "What's around town" of the large papers. Unfortunately, if you're "underground", you don't exist as far as Wikipedia is concerned, see the verifiability guidelines. No prejudice to recreation if sources can be found. -- UsaSatsui ( talk) 16:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse without prejudice. There's no reason that the article shouldn't be recreated when and if it can be properly sourced, but deletion was appropriate. Lastingsmilledge ( talk) 18:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply