Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatal Fear

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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal Fear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

An article about this band was previously deleted in September 2010, but this one was created in November 2011 with different content. Over four years later, this band still fails to assert notability by lacking to garner any significant coverage from reliable sources independent from the subject and still fail to meet any of the criteria of WP:BAND. They are simply not notable. — ξ^xplicit 07:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 08:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 08:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this still seems questionable as with the 1st AfD. Notifying the only still active AfDer Armbrust. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NBAND and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

  KyloWrenCubeJedi (talk · contribs) wrote on the article:

  Here are three sources about the subject:

  1. KyloWrenCubeJedi (talk · contribs) uploaded to Commons the file File:FatalFear, Planet Metal Feature, Metal Hammer issue 203 (April 2010).jpg. The image is currently tagged as being without permission. The image's description is "Feature of the South Korean band FatalFear" from Metal Hammer, issue 203, April 2010 and the permission section says "Permission Given in 2010 for Wiki usage by Editor James Gill".

     KyloWrenCubeJedi, would you follow the instructions at commons:Image permission and send a copy of the written permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org?

     The Metal Hammer article is titled "Fatal Fear. South Korea: Brit frontman goes Far East Beyond Driven." It notes:

  2. Baker, Ross (September 2010). "Rising Korean Extreme Metal with a British Flavour". Powerplay Rock and Metal Magazine. Archived from the original on 2016-01-31. Retrieved 2016-01-31.

     The article notes:

     According to http://www.newsstand.co.uk/190-Heavy-Metal-Magazines/323-Subscribe-to-POWERPLAY-Magazine-Subscription.aspx^WebCite: This establishes that Powerplay Rock and Metal Magazine is a print magazine.
  3. The band's Facebook page is https://www.facebook.com/FatalFearMetal. I reviewed a post on the Facebook page, which says: Of particular note is the sentence "We were the only band to be featured in the magazine EVER from Korea...that i know of, and its one of the top magazines for the genrer of metal in the world".

     If citation information from the Korean magazine EVER could be provided (the date the article was published), then this would be a third source about the subject.

     KyloWrenCubeJedi, would you provide this information and any other articles from reliable sources about the band? Two sources are enough to establish notability, but additional sources will strongly establish that the band passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the above sources meet WP:GNGAtlantic306 (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I requested reversal of the NAC because although likely unintentional, it looked like a supervote, and perhaps more importantly this discussion doesn't look to have either a clear consensus or an obvious lack thereof such that, to me, an NAC seemed inappropriate. Thanks for re-opening. I was evaluating the subject while it was being closed and formed an opinion, but I don't want it to seem like I asked for it to be re-opened just so I could get my !vote in, so I'll abstain. It was a "weak" one anyway. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In regards to the links provided by User:Cunard above, I'll reiterate the point I brought up on User:Valoem's talk page. There are four links presented: a now-deleted images on Commons, an article by Powerplay Rock and Metal magazine of the band, a link to Newsstand that verifies that said magazine is published physically, and a link to the band's Facebook page where they make an unverified claim ("We were the only band to be featured in the magazine EVER from Korea...that i know of, and its one of the top magazines for the genrer of metal in the world"). Since one isn't about the band at all (Newsstand) and the other isn't a suitable source for a WP:BLP (Facebook), that shrinks the usable amount of sources down to two. Searching the Korean portal Naver (both 'Fatal Fear' and '페이탈 피어') doesn't bring anything up on them; the latter search term brought up articles about Fear (1996 film) instead. WP:GNG nor WP:BAND guarantee an article on the subject: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included; Musicians or ensembles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria (boldfaced emphasis mine). Fatal Fear and FatalFear were created and largely maintained by at least one band member (User:Dreaded209 which is the name of vocalist, User:Cuwoo7 who was blocked as a sockpuppet, User:MetalModX, User:Korean metalhead, and User:KyloWrenCubeJedi, who have all been single-purpose accounts), which also points to a conflict of interest issue. This band has been active for 12 years and coverage is nearly non-existent, despite searches for sources in both English and Korean. All these factors combined suggest that this band does not meet notability requirements, not by a long shot. — ξ^xplicit 01:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the articles from Metal Hammer and Powerplay Rock and Metal Magazine are by themselves enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles: Cunard (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The supposed significant coverage in reliable independent sources is fleeting and trivial. This is just another one of uncounted tens of thousands of non-notable rock and metal bands worldwide, and trying to spin brief passing mentions into notability does not fly with me. That's my sincere evaluation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• How are the Metal Hammer article and this article in Power Play Magazine "fleeting and trivial"? I think neither are fleeting or trivial. They both provide substantial coverage of the subject, enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Cunard (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Fleeting" in this context means the lack of ongoing coverage, Cunard. Truly notable bands will be covered repeatedly in reliable sources as their careers develop. Most of the content of these two articles consists of quotations by band members which is not independent coverage needed to establish notability. What remains is standard promotional fluff extracted from the band's social media or press releases. There is no evidence of original reporting or truly significant coverage. That is what I mean by "trivial". I know significant coverage when I see it, and as I evaluate the matter, I do not see it here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it is necessary to have ongoing coverage per Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary ("Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.").

  I think the sources still amount to significant coverage with the quotes removed. I disagree that "There is no evidence of original reporting or truly significant coverage." For example, in Power Play Magazine, author Ross Baker wrote:

  This is independent, third-party analysis of the band. The author calls its music "slamming melodic death metal" that has "a truly international flavour". Author Ross Baker marvels that the band started as an "underground act" that got lucky with a "big gig" and has achieved a "milestone" in Korea, a country where "the metal scene is virtually unknown". This is original analysis.

  The article further discusses this "big gig":

  It chronicles the band's history and comes across to me as "original reporting".

  Likewise the Metal Hammer discusses the band's history.

  Cunard (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2016 (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.