Home • Search • Translate
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 keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 15:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Exorcise Tape

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Exorcise Tape (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable debut album by a non-notable duo with cult following. Reviews alone do not make it notable. Brief announcements about the release of this album are not reviews and do not count toward Notability.20:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC) Notability is not inherited. The music can be described all day but if it is not notable, it simply is not notable and nothing the article can say or do will make it notable. Atsme 💬 📧 16:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC) *Addendum - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demon Queen for more policy-based reasons to delete. This album also fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NALBUM, fails WP:RS, fails WP:SELF-PUBLISHED (self-released by the now defunct Rad Cult which is Thomas Fec). Right off the bat, the first 2 cited sources in this article's single sentence lead do not support the material. I cannot verify that The Orchard had anything to do with this album. In fact, the editor who was arguing to keep Demon Queen created this article on 2022-09-19 while the AfD was ongoing. I do see cited sources with removed material which raises a red flag for me because the cited sources are like WP, a source anyone can join and edit. See the submission guidelines for PopMatters, one of the cited sources. Look at Impose Magazine, another cited source = underground, independent music scene - that is not mainstream and it is neither notable nor a RS....and the list goes on. For example, the NYTimes is cited but it is not NYTimes staff, it a Blog post by PopMatters. That NYTimes blog post went defunct in 2019. Atsme 💬 📧 18:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note to closer: there is an issue regarding this NN album being released by The Orchard. It is simply not true, unverifiable and the only evidence is an image of the defunct Rad Cult which leads to this FB discussion, and to this removed YouTube video. There is no verification whatsoever that The Orchard released this album. The false claim further demonstrates the issues we are dealing with here regarding unreliable sources, and raises questions about why this particular NN album has gotten so much attention. The album does exist, and the attempt to edit war back into the lead that The Orchard released it is quite puzzling, as is the attempt to present this album as notable in light of the announcement reviews of its debut. Atsme 💬 📧 15:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Note to closer: this is another baffling claim from Atsme which I have responded to at Talk:Exorcise Tape#The Orchard. To summarise, Atsme's claims appear to be entirely baseless and made up, and one allegedly incorrect label does not make an album non-notable either so it's not even a relevant claim here. And take notice of the multiple editors below agreeing that PopMatters is reliable and Atsme's claims against it are also baseless. And no such Facebook link even exists in the article! I don't know how they found that but it's not in any of the sources in the article, nor does it make any sense why it'd be considered a point against the article's notability. As if the most notable artists in the world never post to Facebook or YouTube. As I said in that talk page discussion, these are the kinds of arguments that make WP:AGF much harder than it should be on this site. QuietHere ( talk) 19:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • There is nothing baffling about my argument, and it would be much appreciated if you would drop the hyperbole when referring to my argument. Everything I have presented is straight-forward, verifiable, factual information from the research I conducted based on my years of experience as a WP:NPP reviewer and tutor at WP:NPPSCHOOL. The text below that album cover in PopMatters was either added to that graphic by the layout design team or was submitted like that by the author of that review, who is a music teacher at an elementary school in Houston. The Orchard did not release that album. It was released by Rad Cult as seen on the original album cover. Atsme 💬 📧 14:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • GNG states: (my bold underline)
  • "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. – this article has maybe 2 cited sources that will pass GNG. Some of the same sources are used more than once. Some of the cited sources accept submitted reviews and we don't know the qualifications of the person who submitted the review, or if it was by the musicians themselves – there is no editorial oversight that I can tell. Another source uses volunteer reviewers who work from home. Another uses anonymous reviewers, which makes qualifications unverifiable. Another gets paid for its reviews so it is not independent. The 2 sources that may qualify talk more about the people than the album, so that is a fail of GNG.
  • Notability (music) states: (I have bolded or underlined what applies directly, and why it fails)
  • "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. (This is also the GNG fail) Just because an online reviewers agreed to review a self-released, submitted debut album from an unknown NN duo, does not make the album notable, especially when they review anything and everything that is submitted to them.
  • Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria:
    The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:
    Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording, and all advertising that mentions the recording, including manufacturers' advertising. (N/A)
    Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases. (NA)
  1. The recording has appeared on any country's national music chart. *Fails
  2. The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country. *Fails
  3. The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. *Fails
  4. The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications). *Fails
  5. The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. *Fails
  6. The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. *Fails
  • This is a self-released album (same as a self-published book) that debuted in 2013, was submitted for review to some online review websites that will review anything and everything. The end. Atsme 💬 📧 22:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Am I somehow mistaken in believing that WP:RS and WP:SELF-PUBLISHED don't apply to the subjects of articles but only to references? Could've sworn I read those both correctly and they have nothing to do with this AfD and I have no clue why you're arguing them, but perhaps I missed something somehow.
    The Orchard is mentioned directly in the PopMatters article in their own infobox. Are you viewing the article on mobile? Maybe that affects your ability to see it, but it's right there for me. I wouldn't have added it to the article if it wasn't there, and besides, one allegedly wrong label is not an argument against the whole article, just something that maybe needs fixing (though not in this case unless you have sources that contradict that piece of information).
    If you have concerns with the value of the PopMatters source, I'd recommend bringing that up at WT:ALBUMS. Perhaps you're right that their open submissions could be invalidating, though this is the first I've ever heard anyone claim such a thing so I couldn't tell you either way. Impose might not be a mainstream publication, but it's only one of over a dozen in the page so it alone isn't trying to cover for notability. And "and the list goes on" isn't actually an argument against the rest of the sources, it only implies they're no good without explaining why you're claiming that, and again let me mention the entries at WP:RSMUSIC which I brought up below. Those sources are all standard for usage in the music realm on WP, and I've never seen any objections brought against them that haven't been resolved (those discussions are linked at WP:RSMUSIC as well). If you want to actually call every source in the article unreliable, that's far beyond the scope of this AfD and a discussion which fits far better elsewhere, but also a concerning premise given just how much of WP could be upended by a ruling against those publications (though I doubt such a ruling would occur).
    Albums being released by artist's own record labels does not make them non-notable, that's an absurd notion. The Big Day and Wasteland are both clearly notable projects released solely by their respective artists. Several of Drake's albums have been released in part by his record label OVO Sound, those are clearly notable. And while it's off-topic and not actually relevant here, I'd also like to note that Rad Cult is not defunct. There are new releases throught that label as recent as this month. I don't know where you got the idea from that the label is defunct but it's wrong.
    Me making the article in the middle of that AfD was because I believed the article would be a strong candidate for a redirect target, a case I made quite clearly in that AfD. I don't see what you're trying to read into my intent for, I just made an album article that I happened to see was notable based on available sources from that AfD's subject article, plus the rest I found through my own searching. There's nothing malicious there. I (or any other editor) could've just as easily found the duo's page multiple years ago, seen those same sources there, and made the same album article well before you knew about it. I don't understand the purpose of even saying that here, and I don't appreciate the implications it holds regarding my intent.
    And I already went over GNG below so I shouldn't need to reiterate that. I don't know what you mean by "cited sources with removed material" so I have no clue how to respond to that (please clarify that point, thanks). And otherwise I think I covered everything. QuietHere ( talk) 18:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    I wrote this before I saw the NYT note addition (which, for the record, was added after the initial "Addendum" post was made) and... what? There's not a New York Times source in the article, what are you talking about? PopMatters is not a blog site, it's a magazine which has nothing to do with the Times. That one legitimately confuses me, I have no idea what you're talking about. And that "last blog post" on the NYT page is from 2010, not 2019. QuietHere ( talk) 18:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep: First off, I'm the article creator, suppose that needs mentioning. That aside, with reviews from AllMusic, Exclaim!, PopMatters, and Tiny Mix Tapes, all of which appear on WP:RSMUSIC, this article meets WP:SIGCOV easily. And that's before I also include the coverage from Spin and Pitchfork which are also both included on RSMUSIC, among others. I've seen plenty of albums survive on far less coverage and I really think this AfD is far stricter than I've seen most other editors be when applying WP:NMUSIC. QuietHere ( talk) 17:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply
And as for the "notability is not inherited" point, let me again remind you that WP:NMUSIC clearly states "an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline." Besides, inherited from what? We both agree that the duo is not notable, I never voted keep in that AfD. QuietHere ( talk) 17:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Look at the sources Sergecross73 - did you see what I explained about the sources? A blog post in the NYTimes? An open source that anyone can join, edit and submit reviews? Atsme 💬 📧 19:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply
If there are any misattributions to the wrong websites, they should certainly be fixed, but I wasn't counting on any of that to come to my keep conclusion. There's dedicated reviews from Allmusic, Exclaim!, Tiny Mixtapes, and PopMatters in the reception section that are all properly cited. You seem to take issue with PopMatters, but it is currently classified as reliable, and the writer is a college educated writer with a degree in music, so I'm having a hard time faulting that one. Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Apologies, Sergecross73, I fixed my error. I meant announcements not reviews. ●°.°● This whole thing is a circular, self-released, album promo, garage band hype – easily bought promotion. Quote from ra.co News aboutTiny Mix Tapes: TMT's staff of writers, which included many operating under pseudonyms,... – that is not a RS. And look at PopMatters - there is a drop down menu that solicits reviews: Call for essays, reviews, interviews, and list features for publication consideration with PopMatters. If you go in and look at these cited sources at the websites, you can see they are not reliable. The album is released on their own label which is defunct. This all ties in with what they call "underground" and "independent" music – small cults, local garage bands and that type of thing. We have a whole string of these articles that have mistakenly been accepted because on the surface they appear notable, but when you actually dig in, you can see that's it's filler hype, fan cruft and unreliable sources. Just like that NYTimes citation - it was the blog and people writing in. That is not a RS, and certainly does not add to N. I've been following this whole little circle of the same garage band members and their 2,000 member cult following. WP was pulled into it, and the non-notables made it into WP. I am trying to clean it up. Atsme 💬 📧 20:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply
I hear you, and I know nothing of this band or musical group or whatever they are. My objection is that there's already a community consensus for the 4 reviews in the reception to be usable, reliable sources, and those 4 sources are enough to clear the GNG. Anything else is more of a cleanup issue, not an AFD issue, unless so much info is culled in the cleanup efforts that some sort of WP:MERGEREASON can be rationalized. Sergecross73 msg me 21:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply
My objection is that there's already a community consensus for the 4 reviews in the reception to be usable... Already community consensus? Diff, please? Those reviews are questionable at best, and the same questionable sources are cited more than once to make it look like there are more than actually exist. This article fails WP:SIGCOV, and WP:RS because a source is not independent of the subject if they are getting paid for the review as it appears to be with Pitchfork. I'm one of those editors who works really hard to save an article, and I've done the research here as an NPP reviewer who, unlike some of these album reviewers, does not get paid a dime for my reviews. This is a self-released album; therefore, it is self-promoted. We are talking about a small cult following. The cited sources are certainly not Rollingstone or Billboard, or any other reliable news with a music section except for maybe Exclaim!! AllMusic is just a database. Spin, maybe reliable, and Vice is questionable. Read the reviews for mxdwn.com by people who work there, some are volunteers like WP. We don't know what Tiny Mix Tapes is doing with their anonymous reviews. If this passes, it won't surprise if the next step is for WP to start accepting Amazon reviews, music blogs, Twitter, and FB posts. Atsme 💬 📧 23:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Difs? They're at WP:RSMUSIC. It documents all the consensus on sources from the various music Wikiprojects, and the discussions that lead to them. If there's no linked discussion, it's probably an obvious staple of the industry. The four sources I'm talking about are...rather commonly supported and used. We are not off on uncharted territory or something. Sergecross73 msg me 01:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Thank you for providing that list, but it aligns more closely with being local suggestions at the time, some of which date back a decade or so. It is not community consensus by a long shot - certainly not at WP:RSN, and some were never even discussed, and were simply taken at face value. I certainly hope you are not judging strictly based on that list. Atsme 💬 📧 02:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Please stop trying to tell me what that list is. I know exactly what it is. I've spent years helping build it through holding discussions and digging through archives of old discussions of years past. I know exactly what it is, and I won't be swayed by your efforts to just handwave it away like that. Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Seconding above. Atsme, if your contention is that the (detailed and thoughtful) work at RSMUSIC is letting in sources of insufficient quality, the right place for that is an RfC; the general consensus, for what I believe to be very good reason, is that prose content from Allmusic, Spin, Vice, and Tiny Mix Tapes is some of the better independent music journalism of the past ten to forty years. Spin and Vice were nationally distributed paper magazines, and Allmusic published entire books of biographical summaries and reviews. Chubbles ( talk) 14:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and move relevant content to Demon Queen. This article demonstrates that the album passes WP:NALBUM, by a country mile, and coverage of an artist's work is coverage of an artist; much of the content here is better sited at the article for the artist rather than cluttering up the album article. The artist page was recently AfD'ed, but the discussion was badly conducted; we should declare a mistrial. Chubbles ( talk) 22:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: this discussion has been included in Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#AfD Exorcise Tape Atsme 💬 📧 01:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect to a parent article. The 14 sources (and I have gone through every single one of them) are a classic example of Internet barrel-scraping for mentions - it doesn't matter whether or not they are RS. Some of their content don't appear to be relevant to the topic at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The last two voters suggested redirecting or merging to an article about Demon Queen or an undefined "parent" article. Well until recently there was a brief article about Demon Queen, but it was deleted in this very unsatisfactory AfD. That one was another lengthy wall of text highlighting a lot of conflicting WP policies that nobody resolved, and to my chagrin the same is happening here. There have been several requests for discussions of conflicting policies that are far beyond this little album and the musicians who made it. Still waiting. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 03:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Sergecross73. The Popmatters review of the album in particular supports it passing WP:GNG. The review in this case was written by an expert and subject to editorial oversight. A publication soliciting submissions from freelance writers is an extremely common practice and does not make a source unreliable. A direct review of an album is hardly irrelevant or a trivial mention, the WP:RSMUSIC accepted reviews support the article's inclusion on Wikipedia. W 42 03:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Notice: left a notice about this AfD at WikiProject Albums regarding claims about RSMUSIC entries being made here (which I made quite clear in the post, and it's definitely of major concern to that project), then decided it was too great a risk of accidental potential vote brigading so I removed it. Hopefully it doesn't cause any trouble. If anyone saw that notice and came here through it, please disclose for the sake of transparency/making it easier to know if I fucked up by posting that. QuietHere ( talk) 05:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:NALBUM per above arguments. Sources presented in this AfD and in the article are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk) 05:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The four reviews at AllMusic, Exclaim!, PopMatters, and Tiny Mix Tapes, which are listed as reliable at WP:RSMUSIC, seem to me to satisfy the first point in WP:NALBUM. In my understanding, this is fairly standard for album articles on Wikipedia. Note that I was linked here from WikiProject Albums, but (intentionally) didn't read the note left by QuietHere before !voting. Endwise ( talk) 06:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There's some fairly wild interpretations at work in this AFD. The four reviews mentioned above clearly establish notability, but in the nomination it's implied that PopMatters calling for pitches somehow makes its content user-generated? What? The nominator claims TMT can't be an RS because it's authors write under pseudonyms? The description of indie music as "small cults" and the scare quotes around "underground" used multiple times in this nomination are the real red flags here. Beginning to think it might be worth looking into this other AFD if this is the basis this one is trying to be pushed through on. Parabolist ( talk) 06:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Parabolist if by "looking into this other AFD" you're referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demon Queen, I don't think there's any concerns there (though feel free to have a look). As the creator of the Exorcise Tape article, I can tell you the coverage I found mainly focused on the album rather than the duo, and the album is their only release aside from the instrumentals-only version for which I could find no coverage. I don't think anyone in that AfD ever believed the duo was notable, it was mostly just a disagreement regarding appropriate redirect targets. I have my opinions about parts of it but I don't believe there was ever anything illegitimate in there. QuietHere ( talk) 07:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    If there is coverage of the duo's album, that is coverage of the duo. It makes no sense for us to write about notable albums from non-notable bands; a band that releases an album that has enough coverage to pass the GNG has, itself, gotten enough coverage to pass the GNG (and, therefore, also WP:MUSIC). There are cases where notable artists make side projects that we don't always class out as a separate article aside from the album (e.g., Along the Road by Ashton, Becker, and Dente), but that's merely an information-organization issue rather than a notability one. We can smoosh all the information about Demon Queen into this article (the decision to leave a redlink is indefensible), but usually we do the inverse, smooshing the album info into the band's article, and in this case there's enough to say about the band that's not specifically coverage of the sound of the record that it really does make sense to have a separate band article as well. Chubbles ( talk) 07:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    I disagree with the premise advanced by Chubbles. Notability is not inherited, and that applies from band to their albums, and from albums to the band. If there is sufficient news articles (significant coverage from reliable independent sources) about the band Demon Queen, then an article can be created for the band. News articles about the album are not news sources for the band. The sources provided are coverage about the album, with insufficient coverage of the band to be supportive of a band article in Wikipedia. Each and every article in Wikipedia must prove itself with appropriate citations. There are several albums articles that do not have band articles, and I do not want to go down a rabbit-hole of inherited notability without a discussion outside of a minor AfD for a band album. If this is important, bring it to one of the project articles, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Mburrell ( talk) 22:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as has four reliable sources reviews that pass WP:GNG and that is how we determine album articles as per WP:NALBUM Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I was brought here by the added and removed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums by QuietHere, but I was also involved in the Redirect discussion for Demon Queen, so I came here as continuation of that discussion. In the earlier Demon Queen discussion, I listed out three examples of other albums which are sufficiently notable to have an Wikipedia article, even though the band creating the album was not sufficiently notable to have an article, or at least no-one created one for the bands. My three examples are Forest Floor, In the Groove, and Witch Egg. To reiterate discussions from other editors listed above, the album Exorcise Tape has sufficient coverage from reliable sources to meet general notability, and the sources are agreed to be reliable by being listed in a Wikipedia guideline of Generally Reliable Sources, WP:RSMUSIC. For reliable sources to be dismissed should require a general discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums as a much larger issue than a minor AfD for an album, as it would require many more eyes on the subject. Mburrell ( talk) 22:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Each of these cases illustrate why NOTINHERITED is misapplied in the band-album dispute. An album review is, by its very nature, substantial and significant coverage of an artist; musicians are not somehow magically divorced from the music they put out into the world for notability purposes. Forest Floor's artist is notable for the coverage Forest Floor received, and in fact I have just created an article for Fergus McCreadie. In the Groove and Witch Egg are side projects of musicians that are clearly notable; whether we site the articles at the band name or the album name, or merge them into the parent musician's article, are all information-organization questions, as I alleged above. (Or, at least, to judge them by notability is not a reasonable way to solve the information organization problem.) There may be a small number of edge cases where a group's coverage is dwarfed for structural reasons - I suppose if we had an album article for "The String Quartet Tribute to the Sixpack Band" or something like that, the "String Quartet Tribute" series's notability may be the motivating factor for the article rather than the ensemble that actually performs the music - but these are uncommon exceptions. In the ordinary course of things, album reviews demonstrate artist notability, and I routinely write articles, and have them accepted at AfD, on the strength of album coverage by RSes. Chubbles ( talk) 16:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:RSMUSIC per other comments above. Andre 🚐 16:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note - the nominator appears to be arguing about whether or not the album was released on The Orchard record label. For the record, this is irrelevant to notability discussions. Self-publishing matters for source reliability. It doesn't affect whether or not the subject itself of notable. Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Response: my argument is that the information in the lead of the article is inaccurate because it states that it was released August 6, 2013, by Rad Cult Records and The Orchard, which is unverifiable per their own album cover here. Rad Cult released that album, and the only connection to The Orchard was a shout-out passing mention on FB and in The Daily Rind. No evidence whatsoever that The Orchard released it. PopMatters published a doctored album cover, and is one of the cited source. That is not a RS to establish N, and it clearly disputes what the keep arguments are saying about qualifying reviews. See Popmatters submission guidelines, which further validates my argument about failing N per WP:GNG. I demonstrated similar about the other cited sources as well.
  • This discussion has already been had at Talk:Exorcise_Tape#The_Orchard and doesn't need to be rehashed here as 1. It's not relevant to this AfD like Serge said and 2. You're misrepresenting the issue by rehashing your argument regarding the issue without acknowleding the multiple people who have already disagreed with you on this (including Serge who responded on the talk page and has presumably already read everything you wrote there). QuietHere ( talk) 10:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • And because you didn't say it in the talk page I'll respond to the "doctored" claim here. What? That's the same exact cover art that appears in several other sources in the article (TMT, Exclaim!, AllMusic, even the album's Bandcamp and Spotify pages). There's nothing "doctored" about the image. You keep pointing to that cover art even though I've made it clear the issue is with the text directly below it; at least use the correct language in your argument. But I digress; as has been said, this is a matter for elsewhere on this website. If you want to argue it further, please keep it on the talk page from now on and keep this AfD within its scope. QuietHere ( talk) 14:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Ok, so what you're saying is that I can put an album together including songs/music I've written and intend to debut on YouTube and on DVD, and submit it for review by the online sources cited for Exorcise Tape (because those online sources are open to reviewing anything), and regardless of what they say about the album, it is automatically notable because those online websites reviewed it? Wow. I will get on it right away - never realized it was that easy to get a standalone article on WP. What was I thinking. Thank you for making me aware of this very important RS process. Atsme 💬 📧 00:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Well, all that is true except for that fact that the reliable sources we are citing won't review your album as you described it unless it is artistically notable, and if they don't review it, you can't use their non-existent articles to support your vanity project on Wikipedia. You fail to realize that reliable sources are reliable because they have editorial review processes and have over time built a reputation for reviewing artistically acceptable works by choosing to review only legitimate projects. On the other hand, if you have the ability to put out an album that is artistically notable, I would like to encourage you to do so, as there is no such thing as too many artistically notable albums out in the world, and unfortunately many artistically barely notable albums as well, but that is most likely subjective. There are many ways to get your album noticed, You-Tube is one. Back in the day, Tiffany performed at shopping malls [1] to get noticed for an early album of hers. Many new artists are doing their first works on TikTok. Please, do whatever you have to to get your first album noticed, I am now waiting for your most excellent album. Once the reliable source reviewers have covered it, please have someone other than yourself, preferably a neutral third-party, create an article for your most excellent album. Welcome to the world of music, assuming you have the skills and ability to create that artistically notable album that you are mentioning. Wishes for a great album from you aside, what you call a vanity project by Demon Queen, others are calling a legitimate first independent album, supported by real, not purchased, reviews. Maybe you can take a deep breath, take a step back, and see that the editors who are not supporting your position might have a point, and this is not a personal attack on you, but support for a process of reviewing articles for keeping or deleting by using vetted news sources as acceptable means of justifying a decision, one way or the other. Peace. Mburrell ( talk) 00:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for your information...but just an FYI, I've been in the production/publishing/marketing/television industry for half a century. I know what goes on, and I know that websites and domains are easily acquired. The internet is amazing, and everyone has an opportunity to capitalize on it. It's not a book written by an academic, or a magazine that has editorial oversight, etc. – these online sites solicit reviews and business – they are happy to market & package your product for a nominal fee. They have volunteers doing the reviews at home – it's all there in what I posted, except for maybe 2 RS. Believe what you will, but facts are facts. At this point, if WP has lowered its standard to allow this album into the encyclopedia as a stand alone, more power to us. We are now the encyclopedia in which everyone and everything can have a stand alone article - all you need is 4 online websites writing a review about you or your product. How convenient is that? Atsme 💬 📧 01:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    It's great that you have industry experience, but I'm afraid it may be clouding your judgement here. Your comments are bordering on WP:IDHT at this point. A lot of experienced editors have participated here, almost unanimously against your stance. And you've tried to just hand wave them all away. It's rather rare to see such a one-sided AFD from such an experienced editor as yourself. I think some reflection is in order. Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I will gladly reflect on my argument when a convincing argument against deletion is presented and verifiably disputes the deletes. So far, that has not happened, at least not from the perspective of 2 long term NPP reviewers who do/have done these types of reviews daily for years. We have seen hoaxes survive WP to our embarrassment because of failed reviews, mistaken beliefs of notability, and a lack of careful research. The word "coverage" is used freely as if counting sources is all that matters, when what really matters most is if that coverage is reliable and independent, and that is where we differ. Why would one person's opinion make an album notable? We are not talking about an article in Rolling Stone Magazine, or in a book authored by a music historian, or in Billboard, or even in the music section of a national news source. Of course I will honor whatever the closer decides to be the strongest arguments as I did when Demon Queen closed as delete. The same arguments have been presented here, and should carry weight. Perhaps in the near future WP:NMUSIC will follow the example set by WP:NSPORTS – no more just showing up to the game makes a player notable anymore, and the same should apply for any album debut that is simply submitted for review for the purpose of promotion/marketing online. What other purpose do those online music review sites serve if not to market/promote music? For now, we will just have to politely agree to disagree, and let the chips fall where they may. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 13:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Sources like Allmusic or Popmatters are in the same ballpark as your Rolling Stone publications. Long term staples of the music industry and music Wikiprojects. Not that it matters. Rather than looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on it, you've opted the opposite approach of starting at your own personal conclusion and rejecting all evidence presented to you by experienced editors. The consensus forming here speaks for itself, so I'll leave it at that. Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Unlike you, I have an issue with the false album cover graphic published by Popmatters. That misinformation is now in the first sentence of the lead in WikiVoice in this article, despite the fact that it is not verifiable, and that Rad Cult is the only one who released that album. Sorry, but I do not consider volunteer authors, or part-time freelancers who are not full time professional reviewers comparable to journalists writing for Rolling Stone Magazine at $50k+/- annually, and if you believe they are...well, that's like saying WP is a RS. After what I've been reading in this AfD, I have reached the point of WP:IDGAF. j/s Atsme 💬 📧 14:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    AFD is not the place to change longstanding consensus on source reliability, so that's probably just as well. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Is your argument genuinely that sites that utilize freelance reviewers are somehow not reliable? Because, if so, that should get you laughed out of any discussion about music sources, good god. Parabolist ( talk) 08:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, agree with others. Reviews and reception within mainstream music journalism, especially long-standing industry stalwarts AllMusic and PopMatters, indicate notability. Also worth noting, since AllMusic was questioned earlier, that it is both a database and a journalistic site. Not all albums get reviewed and inclusion in its database doesn't help determine notability by itself, whereas an actual written review by a staff member does. Jr8825 • Talk 01:57, 26 September 2022 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Exorcise_Tape&oldid=1113257122"
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 keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 ( ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 15:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC) reply

Exorcise Tape

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Exorcise Tape (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable debut album by a non-notable duo with cult following. Reviews alone do not make it notable. Brief announcements about the release of this album are not reviews and do not count toward Notability.20:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC) Notability is not inherited. The music can be described all day but if it is not notable, it simply is not notable and nothing the article can say or do will make it notable. Atsme 💬 📧 16:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC) *Addendum - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demon Queen for more policy-based reasons to delete. This album also fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NALBUM, fails WP:RS, fails WP:SELF-PUBLISHED (self-released by the now defunct Rad Cult which is Thomas Fec). Right off the bat, the first 2 cited sources in this article's single sentence lead do not support the material. I cannot verify that The Orchard had anything to do with this album. In fact, the editor who was arguing to keep Demon Queen created this article on 2022-09-19 while the AfD was ongoing. I do see cited sources with removed material which raises a red flag for me because the cited sources are like WP, a source anyone can join and edit. See the submission guidelines for PopMatters, one of the cited sources. Look at Impose Magazine, another cited source = underground, independent music scene - that is not mainstream and it is neither notable nor a RS....and the list goes on. For example, the NYTimes is cited but it is not NYTimes staff, it a Blog post by PopMatters. That NYTimes blog post went defunct in 2019. Atsme 💬 📧 18:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Note to closer: there is an issue regarding this NN album being released by The Orchard. It is simply not true, unverifiable and the only evidence is an image of the defunct Rad Cult which leads to this FB discussion, and to this removed YouTube video. There is no verification whatsoever that The Orchard released this album. The false claim further demonstrates the issues we are dealing with here regarding unreliable sources, and raises questions about why this particular NN album has gotten so much attention. The album does exist, and the attempt to edit war back into the lead that The Orchard released it is quite puzzling, as is the attempt to present this album as notable in light of the announcement reviews of its debut. Atsme 💬 📧 15:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Note to closer: this is another baffling claim from Atsme which I have responded to at Talk:Exorcise Tape#The Orchard. To summarise, Atsme's claims appear to be entirely baseless and made up, and one allegedly incorrect label does not make an album non-notable either so it's not even a relevant claim here. And take notice of the multiple editors below agreeing that PopMatters is reliable and Atsme's claims against it are also baseless. And no such Facebook link even exists in the article! I don't know how they found that but it's not in any of the sources in the article, nor does it make any sense why it'd be considered a point against the article's notability. As if the most notable artists in the world never post to Facebook or YouTube. As I said in that talk page discussion, these are the kinds of arguments that make WP:AGF much harder than it should be on this site. QuietHere ( talk) 19:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • There is nothing baffling about my argument, and it would be much appreciated if you would drop the hyperbole when referring to my argument. Everything I have presented is straight-forward, verifiable, factual information from the research I conducted based on my years of experience as a WP:NPP reviewer and tutor at WP:NPPSCHOOL. The text below that album cover in PopMatters was either added to that graphic by the layout design team or was submitted like that by the author of that review, who is a music teacher at an elementary school in Houston. The Orchard did not release that album. It was released by Rad Cult as seen on the original album cover. Atsme 💬 📧 14:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • GNG states: (my bold underline)
  • "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. – this article has maybe 2 cited sources that will pass GNG. Some of the same sources are used more than once. Some of the cited sources accept submitted reviews and we don't know the qualifications of the person who submitted the review, or if it was by the musicians themselves – there is no editorial oversight that I can tell. Another source uses volunteer reviewers who work from home. Another uses anonymous reviewers, which makes qualifications unverifiable. Another gets paid for its reviews so it is not independent. The 2 sources that may qualify talk more about the people than the album, so that is a fail of GNG.
  • Notability (music) states: (I have bolded or underlined what applies directly, and why it fails)
  • "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. (This is also the GNG fail) Just because an online reviewers agreed to review a self-released, submitted debut album from an unknown NN duo, does not make the album notable, especially when they review anything and everything that is submitted to them.
  • Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria:
    The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:
    Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording, and all advertising that mentions the recording, including manufacturers' advertising. (N/A)
    Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases. (NA)
  1. The recording has appeared on any country's national music chart. *Fails
  2. The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country. *Fails
  3. The recording has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. *Fails
  4. The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications). *Fails
  5. The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. *Fails
  6. The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. *Fails
  • This is a self-released album (same as a self-published book) that debuted in 2013, was submitted for review to some online review websites that will review anything and everything. The end. Atsme 💬 📧 22:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Am I somehow mistaken in believing that WP:RS and WP:SELF-PUBLISHED don't apply to the subjects of articles but only to references? Could've sworn I read those both correctly and they have nothing to do with this AfD and I have no clue why you're arguing them, but perhaps I missed something somehow.
    The Orchard is mentioned directly in the PopMatters article in their own infobox. Are you viewing the article on mobile? Maybe that affects your ability to see it, but it's right there for me. I wouldn't have added it to the article if it wasn't there, and besides, one allegedly wrong label is not an argument against the whole article, just something that maybe needs fixing (though not in this case unless you have sources that contradict that piece of information).
    If you have concerns with the value of the PopMatters source, I'd recommend bringing that up at WT:ALBUMS. Perhaps you're right that their open submissions could be invalidating, though this is the first I've ever heard anyone claim such a thing so I couldn't tell you either way. Impose might not be a mainstream publication, but it's only one of over a dozen in the page so it alone isn't trying to cover for notability. And "and the list goes on" isn't actually an argument against the rest of the sources, it only implies they're no good without explaining why you're claiming that, and again let me mention the entries at WP:RSMUSIC which I brought up below. Those sources are all standard for usage in the music realm on WP, and I've never seen any objections brought against them that haven't been resolved (those discussions are linked at WP:RSMUSIC as well). If you want to actually call every source in the article unreliable, that's far beyond the scope of this AfD and a discussion which fits far better elsewhere, but also a concerning premise given just how much of WP could be upended by a ruling against those publications (though I doubt such a ruling would occur).
    Albums being released by artist's own record labels does not make them non-notable, that's an absurd notion. The Big Day and Wasteland are both clearly notable projects released solely by their respective artists. Several of Drake's albums have been released in part by his record label OVO Sound, those are clearly notable. And while it's off-topic and not actually relevant here, I'd also like to note that Rad Cult is not defunct. There are new releases throught that label as recent as this month. I don't know where you got the idea from that the label is defunct but it's wrong.
    Me making the article in the middle of that AfD was because I believed the article would be a strong candidate for a redirect target, a case I made quite clearly in that AfD. I don't see what you're trying to read into my intent for, I just made an album article that I happened to see was notable based on available sources from that AfD's subject article, plus the rest I found through my own searching. There's nothing malicious there. I (or any other editor) could've just as easily found the duo's page multiple years ago, seen those same sources there, and made the same album article well before you knew about it. I don't understand the purpose of even saying that here, and I don't appreciate the implications it holds regarding my intent.
    And I already went over GNG below so I shouldn't need to reiterate that. I don't know what you mean by "cited sources with removed material" so I have no clue how to respond to that (please clarify that point, thanks). And otherwise I think I covered everything. QuietHere ( talk) 18:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    I wrote this before I saw the NYT note addition (which, for the record, was added after the initial "Addendum" post was made) and... what? There's not a New York Times source in the article, what are you talking about? PopMatters is not a blog site, it's a magazine which has nothing to do with the Times. That one legitimately confuses me, I have no idea what you're talking about. And that "last blog post" on the NYT page is from 2010, not 2019. QuietHere ( talk) 18:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep: First off, I'm the article creator, suppose that needs mentioning. That aside, with reviews from AllMusic, Exclaim!, PopMatters, and Tiny Mix Tapes, all of which appear on WP:RSMUSIC, this article meets WP:SIGCOV easily. And that's before I also include the coverage from Spin and Pitchfork which are also both included on RSMUSIC, among others. I've seen plenty of albums survive on far less coverage and I really think this AfD is far stricter than I've seen most other editors be when applying WP:NMUSIC. QuietHere ( talk) 17:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply
And as for the "notability is not inherited" point, let me again remind you that WP:NMUSIC clearly states "an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline." Besides, inherited from what? We both agree that the duo is not notable, I never voted keep in that AfD. QuietHere ( talk) 17:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Look at the sources Sergecross73 - did you see what I explained about the sources? A blog post in the NYTimes? An open source that anyone can join, edit and submit reviews? Atsme 💬 📧 19:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply
If there are any misattributions to the wrong websites, they should certainly be fixed, but I wasn't counting on any of that to come to my keep conclusion. There's dedicated reviews from Allmusic, Exclaim!, Tiny Mixtapes, and PopMatters in the reception section that are all properly cited. You seem to take issue with PopMatters, but it is currently classified as reliable, and the writer is a college educated writer with a degree in music, so I'm having a hard time faulting that one. Sergecross73 msg me 19:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Apologies, Sergecross73, I fixed my error. I meant announcements not reviews. ●°.°● This whole thing is a circular, self-released, album promo, garage band hype – easily bought promotion. Quote from ra.co News aboutTiny Mix Tapes: TMT's staff of writers, which included many operating under pseudonyms,... – that is not a RS. And look at PopMatters - there is a drop down menu that solicits reviews: Call for essays, reviews, interviews, and list features for publication consideration with PopMatters. If you go in and look at these cited sources at the websites, you can see they are not reliable. The album is released on their own label which is defunct. This all ties in with what they call "underground" and "independent" music – small cults, local garage bands and that type of thing. We have a whole string of these articles that have mistakenly been accepted because on the surface they appear notable, but when you actually dig in, you can see that's it's filler hype, fan cruft and unreliable sources. Just like that NYTimes citation - it was the blog and people writing in. That is not a RS, and certainly does not add to N. I've been following this whole little circle of the same garage band members and their 2,000 member cult following. WP was pulled into it, and the non-notables made it into WP. I am trying to clean it up. Atsme 💬 📧 20:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply
I hear you, and I know nothing of this band or musical group or whatever they are. My objection is that there's already a community consensus for the 4 reviews in the reception to be usable, reliable sources, and those 4 sources are enough to clear the GNG. Anything else is more of a cleanup issue, not an AFD issue, unless so much info is culled in the cleanup efforts that some sort of WP:MERGEREASON can be rationalized. Sergecross73 msg me 21:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply
My objection is that there's already a community consensus for the 4 reviews in the reception to be usable... Already community consensus? Diff, please? Those reviews are questionable at best, and the same questionable sources are cited more than once to make it look like there are more than actually exist. This article fails WP:SIGCOV, and WP:RS because a source is not independent of the subject if they are getting paid for the review as it appears to be with Pitchfork. I'm one of those editors who works really hard to save an article, and I've done the research here as an NPP reviewer who, unlike some of these album reviewers, does not get paid a dime for my reviews. This is a self-released album; therefore, it is self-promoted. We are talking about a small cult following. The cited sources are certainly not Rollingstone or Billboard, or any other reliable news with a music section except for maybe Exclaim!! AllMusic is just a database. Spin, maybe reliable, and Vice is questionable. Read the reviews for mxdwn.com by people who work there, some are volunteers like WP. We don't know what Tiny Mix Tapes is doing with their anonymous reviews. If this passes, it won't surprise if the next step is for WP to start accepting Amazon reviews, music blogs, Twitter, and FB posts. Atsme 💬 📧 23:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Difs? They're at WP:RSMUSIC. It documents all the consensus on sources from the various music Wikiprojects, and the discussions that lead to them. If there's no linked discussion, it's probably an obvious staple of the industry. The four sources I'm talking about are...rather commonly supported and used. We are not off on uncharted territory or something. Sergecross73 msg me 01:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Thank you for providing that list, but it aligns more closely with being local suggestions at the time, some of which date back a decade or so. It is not community consensus by a long shot - certainly not at WP:RSN, and some were never even discussed, and were simply taken at face value. I certainly hope you are not judging strictly based on that list. Atsme 💬 📧 02:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Please stop trying to tell me what that list is. I know exactly what it is. I've spent years helping build it through holding discussions and digging through archives of old discussions of years past. I know exactly what it is, and I won't be swayed by your efforts to just handwave it away like that. Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Seconding above. Atsme, if your contention is that the (detailed and thoughtful) work at RSMUSIC is letting in sources of insufficient quality, the right place for that is an RfC; the general consensus, for what I believe to be very good reason, is that prose content from Allmusic, Spin, Vice, and Tiny Mix Tapes is some of the better independent music journalism of the past ten to forty years. Spin and Vice were nationally distributed paper magazines, and Allmusic published entire books of biographical summaries and reviews. Chubbles ( talk) 14:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and move relevant content to Demon Queen. This article demonstrates that the album passes WP:NALBUM, by a country mile, and coverage of an artist's work is coverage of an artist; much of the content here is better sited at the article for the artist rather than cluttering up the album article. The artist page was recently AfD'ed, but the discussion was badly conducted; we should declare a mistrial. Chubbles ( talk) 22:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: this discussion has been included in Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#AfD Exorcise Tape Atsme 💬 📧 01:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect to a parent article. The 14 sources (and I have gone through every single one of them) are a classic example of Internet barrel-scraping for mentions - it doesn't matter whether or not they are RS. Some of their content don't appear to be relevant to the topic at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 03:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The last two voters suggested redirecting or merging to an article about Demon Queen or an undefined "parent" article. Well until recently there was a brief article about Demon Queen, but it was deleted in this very unsatisfactory AfD. That one was another lengthy wall of text highlighting a lot of conflicting WP policies that nobody resolved, and to my chagrin the same is happening here. There have been several requests for discussions of conflicting policies that are far beyond this little album and the musicians who made it. Still waiting. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 03:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Sergecross73. The Popmatters review of the album in particular supports it passing WP:GNG. The review in this case was written by an expert and subject to editorial oversight. A publication soliciting submissions from freelance writers is an extremely common practice and does not make a source unreliable. A direct review of an album is hardly irrelevant or a trivial mention, the WP:RSMUSIC accepted reviews support the article's inclusion on Wikipedia. W 42 03:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
Notice: left a notice about this AfD at WikiProject Albums regarding claims about RSMUSIC entries being made here (which I made quite clear in the post, and it's definitely of major concern to that project), then decided it was too great a risk of accidental potential vote brigading so I removed it. Hopefully it doesn't cause any trouble. If anyone saw that notice and came here through it, please disclose for the sake of transparency/making it easier to know if I fucked up by posting that. QuietHere ( talk) 05:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets WP:NALBUM per above arguments. Sources presented in this AfD and in the article are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP ( talk) 05:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The four reviews at AllMusic, Exclaim!, PopMatters, and Tiny Mix Tapes, which are listed as reliable at WP:RSMUSIC, seem to me to satisfy the first point in WP:NALBUM. In my understanding, this is fairly standard for album articles on Wikipedia. Note that I was linked here from WikiProject Albums, but (intentionally) didn't read the note left by QuietHere before !voting. Endwise ( talk) 06:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There's some fairly wild interpretations at work in this AFD. The four reviews mentioned above clearly establish notability, but in the nomination it's implied that PopMatters calling for pitches somehow makes its content user-generated? What? The nominator claims TMT can't be an RS because it's authors write under pseudonyms? The description of indie music as "small cults" and the scare quotes around "underground" used multiple times in this nomination are the real red flags here. Beginning to think it might be worth looking into this other AFD if this is the basis this one is trying to be pushed through on. Parabolist ( talk) 06:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    @ Parabolist if by "looking into this other AFD" you're referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demon Queen, I don't think there's any concerns there (though feel free to have a look). As the creator of the Exorcise Tape article, I can tell you the coverage I found mainly focused on the album rather than the duo, and the album is their only release aside from the instrumentals-only version for which I could find no coverage. I don't think anyone in that AfD ever believed the duo was notable, it was mostly just a disagreement regarding appropriate redirect targets. I have my opinions about parts of it but I don't believe there was ever anything illegitimate in there. QuietHere ( talk) 07:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    If there is coverage of the duo's album, that is coverage of the duo. It makes no sense for us to write about notable albums from non-notable bands; a band that releases an album that has enough coverage to pass the GNG has, itself, gotten enough coverage to pass the GNG (and, therefore, also WP:MUSIC). There are cases where notable artists make side projects that we don't always class out as a separate article aside from the album (e.g., Along the Road by Ashton, Becker, and Dente), but that's merely an information-organization issue rather than a notability one. We can smoosh all the information about Demon Queen into this article (the decision to leave a redlink is indefensible), but usually we do the inverse, smooshing the album info into the band's article, and in this case there's enough to say about the band that's not specifically coverage of the sound of the record that it really does make sense to have a separate band article as well. Chubbles ( talk) 07:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    I disagree with the premise advanced by Chubbles. Notability is not inherited, and that applies from band to their albums, and from albums to the band. If there is sufficient news articles (significant coverage from reliable independent sources) about the band Demon Queen, then an article can be created for the band. News articles about the album are not news sources for the band. The sources provided are coverage about the album, with insufficient coverage of the band to be supportive of a band article in Wikipedia. Each and every article in Wikipedia must prove itself with appropriate citations. There are several albums articles that do not have band articles, and I do not want to go down a rabbit-hole of inherited notability without a discussion outside of a minor AfD for a band album. If this is important, bring it to one of the project articles, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. Mburrell ( talk) 22:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as has four reliable sources reviews that pass WP:GNG and that is how we determine album articles as per WP:NALBUM Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I was brought here by the added and removed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums by QuietHere, but I was also involved in the Redirect discussion for Demon Queen, so I came here as continuation of that discussion. In the earlier Demon Queen discussion, I listed out three examples of other albums which are sufficiently notable to have an Wikipedia article, even though the band creating the album was not sufficiently notable to have an article, or at least no-one created one for the bands. My three examples are Forest Floor, In the Groove, and Witch Egg. To reiterate discussions from other editors listed above, the album Exorcise Tape has sufficient coverage from reliable sources to meet general notability, and the sources are agreed to be reliable by being listed in a Wikipedia guideline of Generally Reliable Sources, WP:RSMUSIC. For reliable sources to be dismissed should require a general discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums as a much larger issue than a minor AfD for an album, as it would require many more eyes on the subject. Mburrell ( talk) 22:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Each of these cases illustrate why NOTINHERITED is misapplied in the band-album dispute. An album review is, by its very nature, substantial and significant coverage of an artist; musicians are not somehow magically divorced from the music they put out into the world for notability purposes. Forest Floor's artist is notable for the coverage Forest Floor received, and in fact I have just created an article for Fergus McCreadie. In the Groove and Witch Egg are side projects of musicians that are clearly notable; whether we site the articles at the band name or the album name, or merge them into the parent musician's article, are all information-organization questions, as I alleged above. (Or, at least, to judge them by notability is not a reasonable way to solve the information organization problem.) There may be a small number of edge cases where a group's coverage is dwarfed for structural reasons - I suppose if we had an album article for "The String Quartet Tribute to the Sixpack Band" or something like that, the "String Quartet Tribute" series's notability may be the motivating factor for the article rather than the ensemble that actually performs the music - but these are uncommon exceptions. In the ordinary course of things, album reviews demonstrate artist notability, and I routinely write articles, and have them accepted at AfD, on the strength of album coverage by RSes. Chubbles ( talk) 16:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:RSMUSIC per other comments above. Andre 🚐 16:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note - the nominator appears to be arguing about whether or not the album was released on The Orchard record label. For the record, this is irrelevant to notability discussions. Self-publishing matters for source reliability. It doesn't affect whether or not the subject itself of notable. Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Response: my argument is that the information in the lead of the article is inaccurate because it states that it was released August 6, 2013, by Rad Cult Records and The Orchard, which is unverifiable per their own album cover here. Rad Cult released that album, and the only connection to The Orchard was a shout-out passing mention on FB and in The Daily Rind. No evidence whatsoever that The Orchard released it. PopMatters published a doctored album cover, and is one of the cited source. That is not a RS to establish N, and it clearly disputes what the keep arguments are saying about qualifying reviews. See Popmatters submission guidelines, which further validates my argument about failing N per WP:GNG. I demonstrated similar about the other cited sources as well.
  • This discussion has already been had at Talk:Exorcise_Tape#The_Orchard and doesn't need to be rehashed here as 1. It's not relevant to this AfD like Serge said and 2. You're misrepresenting the issue by rehashing your argument regarding the issue without acknowleding the multiple people who have already disagreed with you on this (including Serge who responded on the talk page and has presumably already read everything you wrote there). QuietHere ( talk) 10:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • And because you didn't say it in the talk page I'll respond to the "doctored" claim here. What? That's the same exact cover art that appears in several other sources in the article (TMT, Exclaim!, AllMusic, even the album's Bandcamp and Spotify pages). There's nothing "doctored" about the image. You keep pointing to that cover art even though I've made it clear the issue is with the text directly below it; at least use the correct language in your argument. But I digress; as has been said, this is a matter for elsewhere on this website. If you want to argue it further, please keep it on the talk page from now on and keep this AfD within its scope. QuietHere ( talk) 14:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Ok, so what you're saying is that I can put an album together including songs/music I've written and intend to debut on YouTube and on DVD, and submit it for review by the online sources cited for Exorcise Tape (because those online sources are open to reviewing anything), and regardless of what they say about the album, it is automatically notable because those online websites reviewed it? Wow. I will get on it right away - never realized it was that easy to get a standalone article on WP. What was I thinking. Thank you for making me aware of this very important RS process. Atsme 💬 📧 00:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Well, all that is true except for that fact that the reliable sources we are citing won't review your album as you described it unless it is artistically notable, and if they don't review it, you can't use their non-existent articles to support your vanity project on Wikipedia. You fail to realize that reliable sources are reliable because they have editorial review processes and have over time built a reputation for reviewing artistically acceptable works by choosing to review only legitimate projects. On the other hand, if you have the ability to put out an album that is artistically notable, I would like to encourage you to do so, as there is no such thing as too many artistically notable albums out in the world, and unfortunately many artistically barely notable albums as well, but that is most likely subjective. There are many ways to get your album noticed, You-Tube is one. Back in the day, Tiffany performed at shopping malls [1] to get noticed for an early album of hers. Many new artists are doing their first works on TikTok. Please, do whatever you have to to get your first album noticed, I am now waiting for your most excellent album. Once the reliable source reviewers have covered it, please have someone other than yourself, preferably a neutral third-party, create an article for your most excellent album. Welcome to the world of music, assuming you have the skills and ability to create that artistically notable album that you are mentioning. Wishes for a great album from you aside, what you call a vanity project by Demon Queen, others are calling a legitimate first independent album, supported by real, not purchased, reviews. Maybe you can take a deep breath, take a step back, and see that the editors who are not supporting your position might have a point, and this is not a personal attack on you, but support for a process of reviewing articles for keeping or deleting by using vetted news sources as acceptable means of justifying a decision, one way or the other. Peace. Mburrell ( talk) 00:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for your information...but just an FYI, I've been in the production/publishing/marketing/television industry for half a century. I know what goes on, and I know that websites and domains are easily acquired. The internet is amazing, and everyone has an opportunity to capitalize on it. It's not a book written by an academic, or a magazine that has editorial oversight, etc. – these online sites solicit reviews and business – they are happy to market & package your product for a nominal fee. They have volunteers doing the reviews at home – it's all there in what I posted, except for maybe 2 RS. Believe what you will, but facts are facts. At this point, if WP has lowered its standard to allow this album into the encyclopedia as a stand alone, more power to us. We are now the encyclopedia in which everyone and everything can have a stand alone article - all you need is 4 online websites writing a review about you or your product. How convenient is that? Atsme 💬 📧 01:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    It's great that you have industry experience, but I'm afraid it may be clouding your judgement here. Your comments are bordering on WP:IDHT at this point. A lot of experienced editors have participated here, almost unanimously against your stance. And you've tried to just hand wave them all away. It's rather rare to see such a one-sided AFD from such an experienced editor as yourself. I think some reflection is in order. Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I will gladly reflect on my argument when a convincing argument against deletion is presented and verifiably disputes the deletes. So far, that has not happened, at least not from the perspective of 2 long term NPP reviewers who do/have done these types of reviews daily for years. We have seen hoaxes survive WP to our embarrassment because of failed reviews, mistaken beliefs of notability, and a lack of careful research. The word "coverage" is used freely as if counting sources is all that matters, when what really matters most is if that coverage is reliable and independent, and that is where we differ. Why would one person's opinion make an album notable? We are not talking about an article in Rolling Stone Magazine, or in a book authored by a music historian, or in Billboard, or even in the music section of a national news source. Of course I will honor whatever the closer decides to be the strongest arguments as I did when Demon Queen closed as delete. The same arguments have been presented here, and should carry weight. Perhaps in the near future WP:NMUSIC will follow the example set by WP:NSPORTS – no more just showing up to the game makes a player notable anymore, and the same should apply for any album debut that is simply submitted for review for the purpose of promotion/marketing online. What other purpose do those online music review sites serve if not to market/promote music? For now, we will just have to politely agree to disagree, and let the chips fall where they may. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 13:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Sources like Allmusic or Popmatters are in the same ballpark as your Rolling Stone publications. Long term staples of the music industry and music Wikiprojects. Not that it matters. Rather than looking at the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on it, you've opted the opposite approach of starting at your own personal conclusion and rejecting all evidence presented to you by experienced editors. The consensus forming here speaks for itself, so I'll leave it at that. Sergecross73 msg me 14:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Unlike you, I have an issue with the false album cover graphic published by Popmatters. That misinformation is now in the first sentence of the lead in WikiVoice in this article, despite the fact that it is not verifiable, and that Rad Cult is the only one who released that album. Sorry, but I do not consider volunteer authors, or part-time freelancers who are not full time professional reviewers comparable to journalists writing for Rolling Stone Magazine at $50k+/- annually, and if you believe they are...well, that's like saying WP is a RS. After what I've been reading in this AfD, I have reached the point of WP:IDGAF. j/s Atsme 💬 📧 14:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    AFD is not the place to change longstanding consensus on source reliability, so that's probably just as well. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC) reply
    Is your argument genuinely that sites that utilize freelance reviewers are somehow not reliable? Because, if so, that should get you laughed out of any discussion about music sources, good god. Parabolist ( talk) 08:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, agree with others. Reviews and reception within mainstream music journalism, especially long-standing industry stalwarts AllMusic and PopMatters, indicate notability. Also worth noting, since AllMusic was questioned earlier, that it is both a database and a journalistic site. Not all albums get reviewed and inclusion in its database doesn't help determine notability by itself, whereas an actual written review by a staff member does. Jr8825 • Talk 01:57, 26 September 2022 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Exorcise_Tape&oldid=1113257122"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE