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 no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 20:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arafel (band)[edit]

Arafel (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable band that fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. No third party sources, other than the two Hebrew reviews. The fact that the reviews are in Hebrew make it tough, but I cannot read Hebrew nor can my computer translate it. Either way, the reviews, by the titles of them, and the length of them, seem as though they are not notable enough to keep this article. Lack of english sources to verify notability. Unsourced information has already been deleted, but the article is still full of unsourced information. Delete Undeath (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lack of English sources is immaterial to the group's notability, and the inability of the nominator to read Hebrew does not necessarily make them unreliable. Chubbles (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not the fault of the nominator that they cannot read Hebrew. Wikipedia guidelines may not require English-language sources, but they do say that translations should be made available so that editors can make a reasonable attempt at vetting the sources. DarkAudit (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anyone can find the translation, go ahead. Even with the translations, I still do not think it will pass notability. A page, that I created, was deleted even though I had four reviews written in German. Foreign reviews are iffy, because if the reviewer was well known, then they would have an english translation for more coverage/readers. Undeath (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What page was that? Can I see a copy of the deleted article? Chubbles (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was the page for Yersinia (band). I don't have a copy of the deleted text, but you can ask the admin who deleted it to get you the text. The entire review was on the talk page. Undeath (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. I tagged this for notability issues and lack of sources a while back in the hope that it would be improved but there is still no clear pass of WP:BAND and no evidence of coverage in reliable sources. There's plenty around in the usual dubious/undiscriminating metal fansites, but nothing substantial looking.--Michig (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - seems like there are arguments both for keep and delete, and I'm voting here out of personal knowledge - having heard of this band myself and not being very interested in black metal, I think that it does pass WP:N. WP:V is another issue, although this is something that can improve, therefore it's not a good enough reason to delete IMO. I may change my vote if new evidence is brought up.

Hey I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem like a reason to put forward a weak keep, is there any reason why you think it meets WP:MUISC as that is the point of contention. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but an article is not obligated to meet any of WP:N's sub-pages in order to be on Wikipedia. Instead, WP:N (and WP:MUSIC) is a guideline of what probably should and should not be on Wikipedia. WP:V and WP:NOT are inclusion policies, both of which this article passes. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC is a guideline which must be followed. It does not state that a band is notable if an editor has heard of them. Undeath (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's just a guideline and should be followed. See both definition of the word "guideline" and WP:IAR. That said, I agree the original argument is weak at best. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Personal knowledge does not count in AfD. Just becuase you've heard of a band, does not mean that everyone else has. That doesn't meet WP:N. Undeath (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article fails to meet the requirements for inclusion per WP:MUSIC. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The Tvangeste connection seems to meet WP:MUSIC #6, the SPG label seems to have been around since at least 1994 with a fair variety of artists, and the Sound Age label seems to have a non-trivial stable of artists. Respectable internet presence for a mostly Russian/Polish/Hebrew topic. I've added English language reviews, etc. to the article. Shawisland (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CD universe and spirit of metal sites are non notable when describing a band on wikipedia. Undeath (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• BIG Comment The new sources are non notable. Look at the reviews. The reviews were done by members of the sites. They are not official band reviewers.(is that a word?) Undeath (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I will probably nominate Tvangeste for deletion too. That band has nothing notable about it, and has not been improved since 2006. Basically, the comparison of notability of the band in this AfD to Tvangeste just furthers the fact that the band is non notable. Undeath (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP. This band is among the better known bands in the Israeli metal scene. Of course, my personal knowledge shouldn't be enough for Wikipedia, but the current sources are enough to prove notability per WP:BAND. I can read Hebrew, and i testify that the reviews on Metalstrom and Metalist.co.il were written by the websites' staff members, not submitted by amateur contributors, so that counts as a professional review per WP:BAND. Also, at least one album that they released was notable enough for the AllMusic radar. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly qualifies under criteria 1: It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. A casual google search indicates that Arafel has been the subject on metal-observer.com, maelstrom.nu, metalmessage.de and metal-invader.com. These are not user submitted sites like metalstorm or metal-archives (both of which also mentions Arafel, of course). For those wondering, that's a website from Canada, USA, Germany and Greece respectively that have either reviewed or interviewed an Israeli band that's made up of Russian expatriates. Most importantly, the band is apparently notable enough to merit an entry on Rockdetector. The site's been down for the past few days but you can always look up google's cache. As an aside, I strongly feel that the nominator should have brought this up at WikiProject Metal to raise attentin among those of us who might be more experienced with the subject matter. --Bardin (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.