Talk:Pathosray

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 October 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Metal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles

Untitled[edit]

The band's album was released by Sensory Records and references can be found on http://www.lasercd.com/

Sensory is a well know publisher within the scene.

Questions / For Mufa[edit]

In regards to the comment on the publisher, Sensory is a reknown record company within the indistry and is a part of Laser Edge records. The URL is listed in the discussion comments. (Panzerschreck076 (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

www.lasercd.com is an independent source for authoritative references? It's an online record store! Those are customer reviews! (And please give correct, complete URLs if they are to be used as references.) BTW, I'm really rubbed the wrong way by the misrepresentation of what Aardschok said about the album. Yes, they were positive, but they weren't that positive. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Drmies[edit]

You are absolutely right, the interpretation was not completely correct. In regards to the record company, I noticed that the incorrect link was taken which should have been: http://www.lasersedgegroup.com/ instead. The reviews being referred to are site-reviews if not mistaken? (10:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panzerschreck076 (talk • contribs)

Hello Schreck, that site is an online store combined with a company website, and the note there on Pathosray is by the record company. I mean, whoever wrote it, it can't be considered a third-party review in an independent publication. As great as the album may be, those claims for greatness can't be made in Wikipedia by the band, or the company, or a fan. We need reviews, preferably published on paper also, since that easily distinguishes the fansites and the blogs from the magazines (like Aardschok, for instance). I found two other e-reviews and added them to the list (whose title I've changed to 'online reviews'), but those kinds of reviews simply don't carry the weight of a review in Rolling Stone or Kerrang (does that still exist?). The band simply needs to get bigger, or put out a second album, to warrant (more) coverage in Wikipedia. I'm not going to speak out on the nomination for deletion, but I can't voice a lot of support for keeping it. But keep on working at it. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, I can follow your reasoning. However on the other side, Reviews as there are in Aardschock, LordsodMetal, Sea of Tranquility etc (who do nothing else but review material) can be considered to my opinion as valid references (again, opinions are subjective :) ). THe band is in the studio now for their second album and I'm confident they deserve a spot on Wikipedia to be logged as a band. THanks for your feedback and if you have tips to improve, let me know. (81.164.137.85 (talk) 09:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Schreck, there's a huge difference between Aardschok and the others you mention (as far as I know), since Aardschok has been published (on paper) for decades (back when I had long hair and listened to Venom et al.). The others don't have that kind of history, and exist purely on the Internet, it seems to me. Now, plenty of internet sources are of course perfectly notable (in Wikipedia terms), but those sites aren't really that independent--they're fansites more than anything, as far as I can tell. But they won't be deleted, it appears, and their second album will bring more reviews and news reports. Save it all--print sources are acceptable too. Let me know if I can help you with anything. Keep the faith. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, Venom...my GOD... ;) just kidding. THank you for the feedback, it's much appreciated. I'd appreciate if you have some time to add pictures in a clean way to the page and how to refer to another Wikipedia article which refers to Fabio D'Amore. Thanks again! (Panzerschreck076 (talk) 13:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Closure[edit]

A the discussion has been open for 5 days, and the article was modified, I will remove the request for Deletion.

PLEASE NOTE that as this is the first time I'm involved in this type of process, I'm doing this in goof aith. If there should be any steps forgotten or missed out on, please let me know. (Panzerschreck076 (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Closing the deletion discussion should usually not be done by editors involved in the process, unless it's a nominator withdrawing the nomination or suchlike. Given the very low amount of contributions to the discussion, relisting it to establish consensus might be a better idea. I'll re-add the tag on the article until the discussion itself is closed. Personally, I'm still not convinced of the band's notability. Huon (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]