Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wristmeetrazor

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wristmeetrazor

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am finding hardly any significant coverage of this band, even from when they released their first album in 2019; most of the coverage I am finding is interviews or album reviews. There was some recent edit warring over the band members, none of which was sourced (and I cannot find any indication if/when membership changed). Primefac (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur with Primefac. I had started researching and got distracted otherwise I'd have nominated. This fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG as all sources fail the WP:golden rule. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there is an article citing the addition of a new member (Interview: Bassist Spotlight: userelaine (Wristmeetrazor) | No Echo), which i can add if this helps prevent deletion. Userelaine (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Interviews are not WP:IS and so do not count towards establishing notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it wouldn’t be added for notability, it would be added as a source for a member change, which wasn’t cited the first time. Userelaine (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is the primary criteria for determining if a subject is eligible for an article. Failing notability means the subject does not merit having an article. I again implore you to read the information at the links in this and other discussion instead of assuming you know what you are talking about, as you clearly have not read nor understood. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"assuming you know what youre talking about" youre right i have minimal idea because wikipedia editing and maintenance is confusing but im well aware of WP:DNB and am doing my best to understand, so please dont get rude. Userelaine (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I am duly chastised. You are a quick learner - something unusual in editors who start of as complainants. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
its okay, the internet is a stressful and aggressive place. i appreciate you all trying to help, and im sorry that im slow to understand. Userelaine (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Primefac and fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references that exist are either not significant mentions or else not independent. Nothing else coming to light. This fails notability under WP:BAND, as others have said. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the references are independent. the band didn’t pay for any of those articles - meaning they just aren’t notable. trying to find information about what *is* considered notable enough to keep this page up is just leading me to dead ends. i can try adding every article i know of but some direction that doesn’t feel like it’s up to personal interpretation would be helpful, if you’d be willing to give it. Userelaine (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read WP:SIGCOV, and, indeed, the whole of that page. The page is generic, and the specific guidelines in this case are WP:BAND but note that if you meet SIGCOV, you meet BAND too because that is criterion 1 of the BAND guidelines. Note also that independence is not just about payment for coverage. But I am a touch confused why you now want to prevent deletion when you proposed this article for deletion earlier today. [1]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
at the time i had proposed deletion because someone told me it was the only way to erase sensitive information from previous edits - until someone had pointed me to the article on Oversight. if the article must be deleted ill take it in stride and re-make it in the future when we have more sources, but at the moment id rather try to save it and have the edits including the personal information be suppressed. Userelaine (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ill read up on SIGCOV again, im no scholar so of course im confused but i just didnt understand how the articles listed that are specifically about the band and its album releases weren't considered non-trivial. i added some more citations to the article but ill try to read up more on the notability guidelines as well, but i might have to find an external explanation Userelaine (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the band has released two records on Prosthetic Records, a record label with a 25 year history, and just recorded a third this past February. under WP:BAND it appears that this would constitute notability. i will take it upon myself to update this article, now that its labeled COI anyway. Userelaine (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the COI template is to make it clear that you should not be editing a page for which you have a conflict of interest. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no one has added into in years, and the COI page just says its discouraged not disallowed, so i figured it would be best to add some info and mention that im in the band in the talk page. if i had more time than a week before deletion i would find someone that isnt me to do it, but now i feel pressured to try to meet the guidelines before the article is dumped Userelaine (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References don't have to be in the article to prevent deletion, you only need show that reliable sources exist. You may post them here in this discussion, or on the talk page of the article, and editors will review them against the guidelines. I would just caution that quality here is better than quantity. Focus on significant independent reliable secondary sources that discuss the band. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you!! i will compile a list, and add them either here or to the talk page. i appreciate you bearing with me trying to learn all of this. Userelaine (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

here are a handful of the more notable articles - please let me know if none of these apply, and if they dont, what i should be looking for in an article to prove notability! i just want to keep the article up so that i can eventually find someone to do some in depth writing on it since i cant do it myself directly

Wristmeetrazor explore catch-22 metaphor in “Anemic (The Same Six Words)” (altpress.com)

Wristmeetrazor & Knocked Loose's Isaac Hale talk expansive new record: "This is a new benchmark" (brooklynvegan.com)

Interview: Bassist Spotlight: userelaine (Wristmeetrazor) | No Echo

Interview: Wristmeetrazor Discuss Their New Album, Working w/ Isaac Hale of Knocked Loose + More | No Echo Userelaine (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not independent, reliable sources so cannot be used to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so im looking for an article written about the band that doesnt include an interview? that will be tough but im sure one exists Userelaine (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This rule is not as strict as it seems and it has been twisted a bit during this discussion. An article about the band can contain an interview, but to be considered independent and reliable it must also contain journalistic research and analysis. A tough interview by a critical or skeptical journalist would also help. On the other hand, an article that is nothing but a friendly interview with softball questions would not be considered reliable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this makes sense! most of what we have is definitely interviews. there are also some more in-depth podcast interviews with individual members but i’m not sure if those could be cited or be considered substantial, though one of them was with Knotfest. i will keep an eye out, im on tour so unfortunately this one might die w this delete thread but again i’m more than willing to revisit having a better one written in the future Userelaine (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, no SIGCOV dxneo (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This one is closer than it seems, because the band has been mentioned in several reliable sources including Exclaim!, Consequence, Revolver, and Loudwire. However, I will have to cite WP:SIGCOV and its point about how someone needs to not only be mentioned in a reliable source, but that coverage must be significant. The band's notices are largely brief introductions and typically admit that the writer noticed them thanks to their eye-catching name. (Kudos to the band on this front, regardless.) Alas, we do not have much that is investigative or analytical. I will have to conclude that they've come close to reliable and significant media coverage but just don't quite reach WP's standards. Maybe in the future. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i appreciate that. worst case, after we put out this new record, i’ll look into finding a good article writer who can put something better together for us, since we’ll get a lot more coverage with new material. not the end of the world if this one goes since it hasn’t been kept up to date. Userelaine (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Err, please read WP:COI, specifically the section about disclosing. Mach61 (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
read the entire thread and you will see that i have. Userelaine (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have not followed the instructions in WP:DCOI. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2023 (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.