Talk:Ghost Thief

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 February 2015 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Source analysis[edit]

Since Metalworker14 created this article in a location that I wasn't watching and it went to AfD without me noticing I would have elected to delete. Here's why: the source, while numerous, are not Reliable.

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/living-sacrifice-to-release-ghost-thief-in-november/ No author. Not a RS
http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/cdreviews/GhostThief.asp Meets RS
http://www.revolvermag.com/news/exclusive-living-sacrifice-premiere-new-song-ghost-thief.html Meets RS. About a song, not the album.
http://www.metalunderground.com/interviews/details.cfm?newsid=97318 Not a RS, but the interview is a good primary source.
http://www.metalsucks.net/2013/11/06/living-sacrifice-conjure-ghost-thief/ not a RS.

I believe it currently fails as well and will bring to AfD at some point if the sources don't improve or someone can convince me that the sources support the subject's notability via WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Metalworker14 & @ Walter Görlitz, I proved notability, so please move onto something else.The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You did not prove it, no. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you left a broken ref in the article with your most recent edit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Walter Görlitz, So, I take it by your analysis that four reviews by four out of the big seven Christian music publications is not enough for notability. The other three are New Release Tuesday, Cross Rhythms and Worship Leader. It charted on three Billboard charts that gives it further credence for notability.The Cross Bearer (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I beg you to re-nominate it for deletion.The Cross Bearer (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I beg you to be civil.

The problem was Metalworker14's end-run. The editor has refused to be cooperative. I'm not impressed but give the editor latitude because I suspect English is not the editor's primary language. Fine. Please discuss. The article as originally created by Metalworker14 failed on several levels and was a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. I stand corrected now and see the RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same to you CIVIL, laugh?The Cross Bearer (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blabbermouth is an RS per WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. Metal Sucks, while not in that list, was recently deemed reliable in a recent discussion. That puts us at 4 third party sources and an interview, plus it charted, and was recently kept at AFD. Another AFD would be a waste of time, it clearly meets the WP:GNG. EDIT: Oh wow, I didn't even notice the sources The Cross Bearer added to the article when I wrote the above comment. That's even more ammunition against deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 10:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blabbermouth is a RS, but without an author, it fails RS.

I missed the Metal Sucks RS discussion. Thanks for the update. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede its strange they didn't list an author, but I'm not aware of any exceptions with Blabbermouth like there is with something like Sputnik Music, nor do they allow for self-published/user-generated/user-blog-type content, as far as I'm aware. Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that it's a requirement of RS not any specific publication. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But if they don't have user-submitted content, what possibly scenario can you reasonably expect? Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do u mean Walter Görlitz, when you say that english is probably not my primary language? That's just rude! Metalworker14 (Yo) 9:09, 20 March, 2015 (UTC)

Interesting point. I've posted it on the talk page at WP:RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with Walter on that notion, or his views on this article... I think he says that because you keep on creating these album articles that are little more than a tracklist, with little to no sources present. These types of articles don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for a subject having an article. You've been informed multiple times to stop, but have not. In fact, you've done it again as recently as yesterday. I believe he's probably taken your non-responsiveness on this as a language barrier of sorts, especially since you keep doing it without explanation or defense. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - That's exactly what I mean. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]