Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youm Wara Youm

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. And salted. Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youm Wara Youm

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

Demo album of insufficient notability - no charting, self-released, only a single review to be found. Keeps being reinstated by creator, so I think some formal assessment and decision would be useful. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect - Redirect and protect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - not notable enough to warrant a redirect. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Demo from a notable band. Any objection to extending this AfD to include Your Heart Engraved These Messages and Rosecrance (EP)? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extend AFD - @Walter Gorlitz:, I support extending the AFD to include Your Heart Engraved These Messages and Rosecrance (EP). However, any album title by the band that has no higher use should be redirected to the band article per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - No sign of meeting the WP:GNG or any of the music guidelines - quite the opposite, as WP:NMUSIC corrected mentions, demos rarely get the coverage necessary to warrant their own article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is for use of fans who want to know about the album. It has original tracks from of the most critically acclaimed metal bands of the 21st century. I work very hard to make these known, as the tracks are actually decent songs (the non-remade ones). I also wanted the luxury of telling the band that I made them when I meet them. Also, they're DEMO albums. How come bands like Blink 182 and A Day to Remember have full demo pages while slightly less famous bands don't?? That is the real issue. I work hard for this, I genuinely listen to the band on a basis, and the only people going to visit the pages are people who WANT to learn about it. This is not the kind of page you typically would use as a reference for an essay, but it is useful in looking for music to find. I would put more articles for backing it up, but Myspace doesn't correctly archive their music, which pretty much all of their demos were received on. I think it is unnecessary to delete them, as I put time, effort, and tried really hard to look for sufficient research. The evidence is in the music itself. You will see a CLEAR similarity between these demos and their first studio EP; the instrumentals are the same, the lyrics are SLIGHTLY altered, but all in all, they're real demos. Wikipedia was created to INFORM PEOPLE. If I had it my way, metal would be in the mainstream. They didn't chart because they're not tunes straight out of a cereal box. But they do exist. If I lived in Chicago, I could EASILY find people who knew these demos or have copies of them. So please keep them. I have a lot of knowledge in the metal community, more than most people do, and I feel as if the article should be there in order to inform fans and deep-cut collectors of its existence. Thank you. Vlastella8 (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)vlastella8[reply]

Vlastella8: Your comments can be debunked by at least four Wikipedia policies, and there are probably more. See the following: Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, Wikipedia:Begging for Mercy, Wikipedia:I Like It. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There has been no good reason for deleting instead of REDIRECTING the title. That being said, @Vlastella8: may add more information about it at Born of Osiris. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No good reason? Read the nomination plus the votes other than your own. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Doomsdayer520: everything that I see is a reason not to have the article, but not a reason to delete it entirely. According to WP:SUBNOT, "Appropriate redirects from the subject's name and entries in disambiguation pages can be created to help readers find such information". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you're getting bent out of shape. Prior to your last comment, you didn't even give an actual reason for redirecting. As for your argument, is there any reliable sourcing at all to add any sourced commentary about the demo at any other target? Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -@Sergecross73:, I would not say I am getting bent out of shape. According to this article, Youm Wara Youm does exist, and AFAIK, the term has no higher use, and should be redirected per WP:SUBNOT. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just meant, you were complaining that no reason was given for deletion over redirect, but your initial stances was "Redirect and protect - Redirect and protect." - you were criticizing someone for not providing a counterpoint to your argument when you yourself hadn't even given a reason in preference of redirect at the time. Anyways, as for the subject at hand, I prefer delete because the page history shows this has been a recurring problem. I'm afraid if we just redirect, the redirect may just be undone again in a few weeks when we've stopped paying attention. I'd rather we delete it now, but if you want to create a redirect after the deletion, so be it I guess (though I suspect it'll attract the same sort of sourcing, OR, and cruft issues currently happening at the article.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -@Sergecross73:, if the term is protected so that only administrators can create the article, how can an article be created at that location by anyone other than an administrator? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of that constitutes a valid reason to keep the article. Please read up on the WP:GNG - Wikipedia's general guideline for whether or not a subject should have its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Vlastella8, it may be the greatest band the world has ever known. It may be that every fan of the band is only interested to find information about the band in Wikipedia and nothing else. The band's fans might even be very, very upset if the article is deleted and possibly commit acts of idolatrous sacrifice. We still need reliable sources testifying to the band's notability, as notability and sources are defined by Wikipedia. This is a very pedestrian project when you come to think of it: Our personal experience, personal testimony, or personal work do not matter at all; at least not as much as them goddamned sources. That's the game, though. -The Gnome (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, The Gnome If you think this is a "game", then I really pity your inability to find actual games in the world. Personal Experience? Not really. How about you personally experience what people want to do to trolls on the internet. Need a source for that? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlastella8 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're focusing on the main take-away of his message here - having reliable sources for a subject is not optional, and you're going to have a very hard time persuading anyone to keep the article without any. Sergecross73 msg me 03:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vlastella8, that's the game, yes. It's an expression meaning "this is what we have to abide by," "these are the rules," etc. Hope it's clear now. Take care, and keep looking for those sources. -The Gnome (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite its historical interest to fans, the album has received no media notice beyond brief listings of its existence. In light of the editors' passion for the band's history, as a compromise I see no problem discussing the existence of this demo as a historical event at the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing any and all criteria for notability, per nomination and commentary above. -The Gnome (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUM. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if not kept I won't bring it back again if it is that bad. I think it should be redirected though, as per Jax's comments. Vlastella8 (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)vlastella8[reply]

Comment - Vlastella8 deleted my comments. On 17:50, 3 May 2018, I restored my comments removing his statements in the process of doing so (it is my right to perform a wholesale revert in a case such as this). --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what "right" you're alluding to here, but neither of you should be knowingly removing each other's content, regardless of who did it first. If you're aware enough to write this, you should be trying to restore all comments, his and yours. Sergecross73 msg me 03:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Sergecross73:, Vlastella8 deleted my comments, so I simply hit undo to restore my comments, which is a wholesale revert that I have the right to do if someone deletes my comments. I am not obligated to go through the process of parsing through everything. Vlastella8 knows that the comments were deleted, and he can add the comments back in the correct manner if he so chooses. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No such "right" exists. Furthermore, judging by Vlastella's editing, they're very inexperienced. It was likely an accident. You, on the other hand, are aware of what you did. That's worse. In the future, please try to restore other's comments when you knowingly remove it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since Jax isn't actually linking to it for some reason, this is the content that Vlastella added and Jax removed in their editing. At least it was inconsequential to the actual discussion - nothing said there should sway anyone's views on notability. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vlastella had responded to my comment far above, and I did not notice because apparently Jax deleted the text. See the restored comments located by Serge for more evidence of Vlastella's attitude toward the process. We do not bite here but editors can take the opportunity to learn about WP procedures with humility. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NALBUM. Septrillion (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2018 (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.