Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Metallum

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 No consensus. The nominator and subsequent participators here have presented a very strong case for deletion based on our relevant notability guideline for websites. However, some credence needs to be given to the availability of sources for a genre of music that historically does not get any mainstream media coverage, such as metal/death music. The "alexa ranking", or hit count, as cited by Evenfiel below, in this case, does garner some significance as being a high-traffic website for its fanbase. Looking at the concerns of the notability camp, and the ramifications/fallout of deleting this article as far as the List of online music databases, they balance themselves out to a firm "no consensus" to delete. (I'm not a vote counter by any means, but as an FYI, it came out in support of non-consensus closure, at 9D/8K. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopaedia Metallum

Encyclopaedia Metallum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I'm aware that this nomination might make me very unpopular among my fellow metalheads on wikipedia but I do not believe the website qualifies as notable per wikipedia's guidelines on websites. The article currently asserts the website's high traffic as reported on alexa.com but the popularity of a website is not an acceptable criteria for notability. Many other websites attract higher traffic and hence are more popular but they do not merit an article page on wikipedia either: see, for instance mobile9.com which has a current traffic rank of 251 over the Encyclopaedia Metallum's 1099. The wikipedia guidelines on notability for websites provide three criterias: multiple non-trivial publication on independent works; receiving a well-known award; and being distributed via a medium independent of the site. Encyclopaedia Metallum does not fulfil any of these three criterias. Despite being around on wikipedia since early 2005, the article page does not and presumably has never asserted notability according to any of these criterias. I've spent a long time on google searching the internet for references to assert the website's notability but I was not able to find any. Hence, this nomination. --Bardin (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hmmm, taking a look around, the creators were interviewed by Miasma, and that is already linked from the article. Nothing on Google News, and going through several pages on Google Web (even cutting down the search significantly) finds nothing. I can't see any reason that this reasonably could be kept without resorting to non-arguments, unless they have been reviewed in printed press. J Milburn (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I was aware of that interview but the only source for that interview is from the website itself. I did not felt it was enough because the criteria required is multiple coverage and not just one. Just thought I should mention this in case anyone is wondering. --Bardin (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as stated above. = ∫tc 5th Eye 13:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Although I must agree with the majority of reasons put forth for its deletion, I think it (just about) qualifies notability due to it's popularity on the subject. Normally, whenever one searches an extreme metal band, they end up at the Metal Archives as the second search result (Wikipedia often being the first - although with less well known bands, Metallum may be first, when Wikipedia hasn't any article to cover such band). Many Wikipedia band articles link to Metallum, also - I think it should be kept, but only just. ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As stated above, Encyclopaedia Metallum is a highly popular site among heavy metal fans. If you google for any metal band, not just extreme metal, a Encyclopaedia Metallum result will likely be in the first page. That should be enough to show Encyclopaedia Metallum's notability.Evenfiel (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment You appear to have either not read or misunderstood the nomination. How does the site's popularity fulfill any of the inclusion criteria? Addressing this issue is what we need to do to decide whether it should be kept or not. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Does that mean that every other entries in this list need to be deleted, as well? It's not like most of them are more notable than EM, on the contrary.216.221.35.182 (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
If this gets culled, those will get kicked as well (by me if nobody else is willing to do it). A lot of them, anyway. There's no way something like jesusfreakhideout.com is more notable than this, even if you could find more external sources for it, it gets less than ten percent of the visitors than EM. Axing EM from Uncle Wiki's little archive would not set a very good precedent. Ours18 (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly what I've thought. If EM goes, then pretty much every other database entry in Wikipedia has to go as well. Evenfiel (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
If they do not qualify as notable per wikipedia's guidelines, then they should go. I note however that some database websites like Allmusic.com, Last.fm or the Music Genome Project clearly qualifies as notable from being the subject of multiple non-trivial mention in independent publications as anyone can verify through a casual search on google news. In any case, this should not be a factor in deciding whether this article should be deleted. --Bardin (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Allmusic guide meets the criteria (unfortunately....what a terribly inaccurate website), but quite a few of the others would go. I'm surprised there isn't anything on the guidelines for extraordinarily popular websites getting a pass, so much of this website is arguably a popularity contest. Ah, well. Nothing can be done about that. Ours18 (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the reason why popularity is not a criteria for notability with regards to websites is that such a criteria would open the door for over a thousand other sites to be on wikipedia, all more popular than the Encyclopaedia Metallum, such as the mobile9.com example I provided above. --Bardin (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as The Haunted Angel said, not including this, even if it is less easy to justify than many other entries, would be very odd given how high its Google results are for many bands which are considered notable enough to be on this site, and its immense popularity as a resource. Lethesl 00:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment What is odd is the lack of the 'multiple, non-trivial independent sources' required to justify its inclusion. However in their absence, it should be deleted. There are clearly many more popular websites that would not be included on Wikipedia, hence popularity itself does not provide notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per The Haunted Angel. It's a leading site in the metal community due to the fact that it has an archive of more metal bands than any other in existence. Notable enough. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Sorry mate, not enough. The criteria are pretty straightforward. I'm frankly amazed they can't be fulfilled but I can't spot anything. A single magazine interview (linked exclusively from the MA site) does not constitute multiple independent sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Peter Fleet (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lacks evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm sure if the website had received such coverage it would be easy to keep this article, but without that it shouldn't be here.--Michig (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The main problem with a notability criteria related to a self-published source site which does not take Alexa into account, is that people who use Encyclopaedia Metallum don't need to write that the site was used. If I'm a writer in some Heavy Metal magazine and wants to see who played in band X, or which albums they've released, they don't need to write "According to Encyclopaedia Metallum, this band...". If a site like Encyclopaedia Metallum is highly visited, it's obvious that a lot of people are using the information provided in order to write something else. Anyway, some research in metal-rules.com shows a fews results: "Going back to Metal-Archives (my source for everything it seems)", "(hell, they’re not even in the mighty Metal Archives!)", "Without using the Metal-Archives.com “List bands by country” feature, how many bands can you name that hail from Singapore?", "According to the ever-reliable" Encyclopedia Metallum, among others.Evenfiel (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Those are what we call trivial mention. The site is not the object of discussion in any of those reviews but merely mentioned in passing. If you take Alexa into account, what's there to stop a thousand other websites from having an article on wikipedia? I believe the guidelines are appropriate: if the site has not been the subject of non-trivial mention in independent publication, then how are we on wikipedia suppose to assert that it's notable without falling into original research? In any case, this is not the place to discuss the guidelines. You can do that at the talk page for the guidelines. --Bardin (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Size and relevance to the style is was determines this for me. Ours18 (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - useless page for a useless website. Fair Deal (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No justification = worthless comment. Thanks for playing. Lethesl 22:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article seems dead now, but the two-page interview in the Finnish print magazine Miasma is enough. Prolog (talk) 11:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The Miasma mag. is enough to establish notability, also, more sources could be found if given the time. (I don't have the sources on me, but if needed, I'll try and find them.) Undeath (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, please do because I still do not see how one mention is equivalent to the multiple requirement indicated on the criteria for notability. --Bardin (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
How about this (bottom of page), or this (bottom of page)? 74.13.246.234 (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Both are trivial mention. They are not the focus or subject of the sentence in which they are mentioned but merely mentioned in passing. For the first link you provide, the subject of the sentence is a band called Protean Collective. For the second link, the subject in the sentence is the number of heavy metal bands. The first link might not even qualify as a reliable source since it appears to be a blog. You need to find articles where Encyclopedia Metallum is not merely mentioned in passing but is the subject being discussed. Good luck. --Bardin (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Whilst I find it moderately surprising that there is no non-trivial coverage of this site, if it does not exist then the article should go. The fact that other pages exists is irrelevant as per WP:OTHERSTUFF. The fact that many articles use it as a reliable source is a problem with those articles, as it fundamentally is not per WP:SPS. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Haunted Angel and Prolog; extremely popular site, decent enough coverage to qualify. GlassCobra 16:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I just got a second shift job, so I don't have much time. But, if you all want to look through this you might find some non trivial sources. It's and advanced google search minus terms like myspace and blogs. Undeath (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment There appears to be a colossal misunderstanding issue with many of the commenters here... 'popularity' of the site is of no relevance whatsoever to Wikipedia guidelines. There have been links to Google searches (not relevant) and to non-notable fansites like metal-rules.com to justify its inclusion. People need to read the criteria for inclusion of internet self-published sources as stated in the nomination. Thus far I've yet to see anything other than the Miasma interview, which is itself linked only from the MA page. The usefulness of the site is not in question here. What is is its notability according to Wikipedia guidelines. All comments regarding popularity can thus be disregarded for the purposes of this nomination. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The original Miasma interview was not published on the internet, but printed in Miasma Magazine #10, which can be bought here. Evenfiel (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Step in the right direction. We just need a few more to justify that 'multiple, non-trivial' bit now. Personally it'd be nice if they were in English, though obviously that's not really a major issue. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unless additional sources are provided to satisfy WP:RS. At the moment, there's not enough to show it has been the subject of multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Terraxos (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment According to Wikipedia:Search_engine_test, popularity through search engines can, in some cases, be a valid way to establish notability. Anyway, in October 2006 the finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat, Finland's most influential newspaper, used Encyclopaedia Metallum as a source for an article about lyrics, names and origins of metal bands. I don't have a scan of the article, and wasn't able to find any online version, but a translation was posted in Encyclopaedia Metallum's forum back then. Evenfiel (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment The article from Sanomat still fails the criteria... Independent, non-trivial sources exlcuding [...] 1.(3) a brief summary of the nature of the content. The article (even assuming the translation is correct) is not about MA, it is about band names and lyrics. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Not sure how you got that idea but Wikipedia:Search engine test explains that an online search can be used to help with eight different research questions (popularity, usage, hoax, notability, reliable sources, information, terminology and copyright). It does not state that popularity equates to notability. For the issue of notability, an online search can help to "confirm whether it is covered by independent sources or just within its own circles." That does not change the criteria for notability. That article in the Finnish newspaper might actually be good enough but not through an unreliable translation delivered on the site's forum. Is there a online copy in its original Finnish language? --Bardin (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I got the idea from here, "Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability.", but I guess that you'll probably say that I misunderstood the article. Anyway, I don't think there is an online copy, but I'll check if someone can scan it. Evenfiel (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2008 (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.