Blood of Angels (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

File:Blood-of-Angels.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This is the 6th of an 11 album discography from a notable band, Nox Arcana, who has charted in the Top Ten on the Billboard Holiday charts, and has coverage in national newspapers and international press. The vocalist Michelle Belanger is not a member of the band, but is likewise a notable author and has been the subject of several tv shows. This album is unique in that it is a collaborative work of Belanger and Nox Arcana. Belanger also performed as a guest vocalist on the 3rd album by Nox Arcana Winter's Knight which hit #8 on the Billboard Holiday charts.

According to WP:Music#Albums if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. This album is permitted to have an album page.

The album page (and subsequently the cover image) were deleted after sockpuppet Afd and votestacking (see SP case for User:MarkChase). In an attempt to save the album article, it was merged with the author's page. But the same editor who has been targeting the removal of all the other Nox Arcana albums, made a second attempt to Afd this album after it was already agreed to keep but merge with the author page.

After the deletion of the album page, I worked with admin SilkTork to bring the album up to standards, and it was agreed to keep and merge (see my talk page.

Then Chzz nominated the cover itself for Afd, claiming it to be a copyvio because it is NOT on a separate album article.

It would be more organized and correct to reinstate the album article itself, so that the album cover would not be in copyvio and so that the edit war that previously ensued over the vocalist's/book author's article would cease to spill over into other articles. Likewise, because it is a collaboration of the subjects of two separate articles, it just makes more sense to have a separate entry, which can be easily referenced by the other two articles.

Example of a cross-collaborative article: The Talisman a book written by two different authors, Peter Straub and Stephen King.

In this case, I would like to see this album Blood of Angels, which is written by Nox Arcana and Michelle Belanger, be reinstated on its own article page. Note: currently Blood of Angels redirects to Michelle Belanger Ebonyskye (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This DRV links to neither a file nor an article. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Can you clarify what you are asking for? As far as I can see there's no procedural problem with the AfD closure; I checked the SPI report but can't see votestacking in the AfD on which the FfD closure depends. Are you saying that (1) the AfD was incorrectly closed; (2) new WP:RS now supports the album's notability (note that WP:NALBUMS says may, not will, and is quite clear that you still need to clear WP:GNG); or (3) something else? Tim Song (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was merged as I said. The sources are now all included in the merged article at Michelle Belanger and some of the sources also supporting can be found on the Nox Arcana article. All of the sources are reliable and have already gone through scrutiny. The image file itself was deleted completely, so obviously there's no link to that. I followed DRV instructions. Please look at the history of Blood of Angels (without the redirect). I'm unsure how to get to the history after the merge and redirect was done. Perhaps the history can be found if the redirect from Blood of Angels to Michelle Belanger#Blood of Angels is removed. Also, you need to consider the policy at WP:Music#Albums which clearly supports having an album article. The requirement to be met is not of sources but of notability of the band, for which there are a good number of reliable sources (Cleveland Plain Dealer, Washington Post, Fangoria, Sideline, TV shows, and some international publications). Fair use is covered if the original album page Blood of Angels is undeleted. Also, the old article probably doesn't have all the newer cites that the merged one does, but I can easily copy cites from the merges into the undeleted article. As for the Afd being stacked, please read some of my talk archives; there's mention of it, but the actual voting I can't locate since the merge took place. Ebonyskye (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The AfD page is right up there, under the XfD link. The page history is there, too. I tentatively endorse the AfD close and the FfD close because no procedural error has been demonstrated so far, and because, in the AfD case, the closer's assessment of the consensus was not clear error. I remain undecided as to the alleged new sources, as none has been presented to this DRV. I should note, however, that, if this revision and the section in Michelle Belanger are the best you can do with respect to notability, it does not look promising to me. You need to clear WP:GNG for the album per WP:NALBUM, and trivial mentions do not count. Tim Song (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Tentative endorsement changed to full endorsement, and undecided cmt struck, due to nom's failure to demonstrate any sort of error in the closures or a reasonable probability that the album would pass WP:GNG, warranting relist / permission to recreate. Tim Song (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted I fail to see anything procedurally wrong with the AfD close, per Tim Song. I also fail to see any reference to increased notability of this album since the AfD close. Not everything produced by every notable artist is itself notable. Also, Ebonyskye; you've stated your case. Let the DRV run now please. You don't need to respond to everything here, and in fact doing so will likely weaken your case. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This entry should have been listed in August 29, not August 28. It is fixed now. Tim Song (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Please see my comments at User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Deletion_review_for_Wikipedia:Deletion_review.2FLog.2F2009_August_29.23Blood_of_Angels. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Just noting, but currently the article's history exists under the redirect. I restored the history after Ebonyskye pointed out that he'd merged content from the article already, to preserve author attribution (which we still need under CC-BY-SA, I believe). There is also a related thread at ANI here (until it gets archived). Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 16:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, I've merged the below DRV here, as there's no reason to have them separate. lifebaka++ 16:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse both deletions. The AfD appears to have been closed properly, and if the article is deemed non-notable, then there's no use for the image. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion There were viable arguments for both deletion and retention, but consensus for deletion was stronger. The material was properly merged into the article for the artist with no apparent loss of information. The sources that exist as of now are a bit on the weak side, and a combination of additional stronger coverage in reliable sources would be enough to justify recreation of the article in the future. Alansohn (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Also, can you please specify why this deletion of an article from nearly four months ago is being challenged only now? Stifle (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

  Because two different deletions were happening here: the album article was deleted after some spillover due to sockpuppetry on the Michelle Belanger page, (that all happened prior to me editing), then the merger took place, then the same person who AFd'd the album Afd'd to cover and has been Afding every album by this band. It was recommended by Hammersoft to go to DRV. Also, I couldn't find the history so it was a bit confusing at first. Ebonyskye (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what in that prevented you from contacting at least one of the deleting administrators, which is a significantly more straightforward task than opening a listing here. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems clear to me that Silk Tork's original deletion of the article was in accordance with the consensus at that time (or at least, within admin discretion based on that consensus). And it also seems clear to me that once the original article was deleted, the image (which is dependent on the article page) also had to go. If that was all that had happened, then this DRV would be very simple: endorse both closes. In this respect, I concur with the above users.

  But, it isn't all that happened. Based on subsequent talk-page discussion, Silk Tork seems to have reversed themself and gone for a merge, and Lifebaka has at least tacitly supported this by restoring the history (and I understand, and agree with, Lifebaka's licencing-based reasons to do so). Thus on the basis of a backdoor consensus, "merge" seems to have been the real outcome of the AfD, even though it says "delete".

  "Merge" is not a "delete" outcome. It is, in fact, just one of the various flavours of keep. The deleting admin has effectively reversed themself, and the nominator here now appears to want DRV to overturn the "merge" outcome into a "keep". I find it perplexing we have other users above saying "endorse deletion" despite the fact that the AfD closer themself has abandoned that outcome.

  In fact, the whole thing is a bloody mess and I think the consensus now (as opposed to the consensus at the time of the AfD) is genuinely unclear.

  DRV will not normally overturn a "merge" to a "keep". That's an editorial matter to be determined on the basis of talk page discussion, so this is not the right venue to consider the matter. But I would go for a relist the article at AfD to nail down what the consensus really is.

  The deletion of the image hangs on the outcome of that relisting. If there is a separate article on the album, then the image's deletion should be reversed. Otherwise, not.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are some AfD closes you just wish you'd never got involved in - this is one! There appear to be two issues here, though they have now been conflated into one, which I'm not sure is wise as I do think there are two distinct cases - one is the AfD for an article, and the other is an AfD FfD for an image.

Blood of Angels The article: I was the person who closed the AfD on the article. I've looked back at that, and I'm comfortable with my close. The article did not meet Wikipedia notability criteria. I offered to userfy the article on request, and when requested I did that. I also userfied the Michelle Belanger article (which did not exist at the time of the closure of the Blood of Angels AfD - see how complicated this all is!), and worked on that to bring it to standard. While doing this I felt it was appropriate to use some of the material from the Blood of Angels article in User:Ebonyskye/Michelle Belanger. I then restored that to mainspace and offered it for a second AfD which was closed with no consensus to delete. So this was not reversing the close or doing anything improper - it was a progressive development, designed to build the encyclopedia in the most appropriate way, and the material from Blood of Angels was presented in Michelle Belanger to the community for consideration. I have worked closely with the editors working on those articles, including clarifying and updating an ArbCom decision on two of the editors working on these and related articles when I discovered hidden in a talkpage history that one of the editors had been topic banned (this has just got deeper and deeper!). After monitoring the progress of the userfied Blood of Angels at User:Ebonyskye/Blood of Angels, and noting that no progress had been made, I deleted it. My mistake in this is that as the article and userification were both now deleted I should have merged the histories, and did not do that - I'm glad to see that someone has picked that up and done the history merge. I see no issue with the Blood of Angels AfD close or subsequent actions, apart from the failure to merge the histories. Endorse my close.

File:Blood-of-Angels.jpg The image: I am less certain with regards the AfD FfD close for File:Blood-of-Angels.jpg. A non-free image does not need a standalone article - the guideline says "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." The argument that an image is permissible is there is a standalone article, but is not permissible if the content of that article are placed within another article is a misreading of the criteria. A non-free image may be deleted from a standalone article if that article is merely a place holder for the image, but it would be inappropriate to delete it if the image is supporting a section which is solely about commentating on the item the image is illustrating. The close of Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_25#File:Blood-of-Angels.jpg was incorrect under the criteria. Added to which it was speedy closed inappropriately. The closer misunderstood Wikipedia:CSD_F7#F7 as none of the criteria there apply. I assume Gwen thought that "Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted immediately." applied - but it clearly does not, as the fair-use tag was appropriate - it had an album cover fur linked to the Michelle Belanger article. It's a clear mistake. The AfD has not run the full course, so my suggestion is undelete and relist. And it might be appropriate to reopen the DRV on the image, as that is an entirely separate issue to this one on the Blood of Angels article. Phew! I wrote a bunch there! Will this Blood of Angels never end? SilkTork *^YES! 22:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• By "AfD" above, do you mean "FfD" or "AfD"? I agree that the bundling-together of these two nominations is a little confusing.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant FfD - I have amended. SilkTork *^YES! 06:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I stand by the CSD F7 close (invalid fair use claim), I'd say the thing to do here is begin a new AfD on Blood of Angels (yes, that would mean restoring the article). Editors should keep in mind that although with album and bookcovers, the outcome of policy is that wontedly, non-free images only wind up in stand-alone articles, that's not the policy and can't be cited. The snag here has been that sourced critical commentary (which is to say, crit/reviews) on Blood of Angels has been ever lacking and without that, the non-free cover image isn't fair use. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is equally misleading. Whilst it is true to say that there is no actual policy which says that a non-free image cannot be used in an artist's article, there is WP:NFCC#8 - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Since in very few cases would an album cover significantly increase the reader's understanding of the article - which is the artist, remember, not the album - then they nearly always fail this criteria. Regardless of whether the FFD had ended up Keep or Delete, that would still have been the case. Black Kite 11:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're citing the root rules here, not the CSD criteria I cited and yes, things can get misleading if one isn't careful. With sourced critical commentary in the text, a low-res, non-free image could likely enhance understanding in a meaningful way and be fair use. Without sourced critical commentary in the text, I'd say reaching a threshlold that cover art could otherwise "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" would be even more daunting. This, again, is why the wonted outcome of the policy is, non-free cover art won't often make it into an article which isn't about the work itself. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mis-indented there - my "misleading" comment was meant to be in reply to the original comments about the FFD. But you're right, anyway :) Black Kite 00:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I thought it may not have been indented as you meant it to be, but then thought it was worth speaking to anyway :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse both – proper determination of a consensus for deletion by the closing admin in the AFD. This is not AFD round 2. Ebonyskye, a few words of advice: if you're going to argue keeping an article, please don't do so by launching ad hominem attacks at the opposition. All that does is piss off other editors and degenerate the entire discussion into a shoutfest. MuZemike 19:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what you mean. I've attacked no one. I simply pointed out that the first Afd of the Michelle Belanger article was populated by socks (which I only became aware of after the fact), but then it effected the album article, and that's when I was notified.

Consistency and Band's Notability: I think that instead of considering the band's notability and the consistency of the discography, some of the opponents were only looking at the earlier sockpuppetry that had taken place on the Michelle Belanger page. I do not believe they were taking into consideration the added sources, the band's notability, or the disruption that pulling out the 6th album from an 11 album discography would cause. The album is unique in that it's a collaboration, and the best way to reference a collaboration between two different authors/artists is to reference that album on its own page. SilkTork and I worked to bring the album portion up to acceptable standards then merge it. But then Chzz took issue with the album cover (and has targeted other albums by the same band for deletion, making it 5 Afd's in all against Nox Arcana and their albums). It never made sense to merge the album with the author page in the first place, but I had no other choice. The cover can't stay unless the album has its own article, yet Chzz removed the article. And yet, the same excuses for removal of this album are being used to keep two other album articles by other less notable bands (see my talk below). It's a double standard. It is important to look at the BIG Picture.

This is what I posted earlier on Gwen Gales's talk page: Other Stuff Exists to provide for consistency in terms of keeping a consistant and well-organized discography. The discography has been in place for several years, since 2005 I think, with new additions being added as they are released. Until now, this was not a problem. Not, until one editor who is a sockpuppet decided to attack the Michelle Belanger article. However, this falls on deaf ears. To make my point, I proded two albums recently, and the prods were removed 1 and 2, both editors claiming that the band was notable. So, if this rationale is accepted for band x and y albums, then why not in this case? Nox Arcana, is clearly notable. In fact, moreso than the ones just de-proded. Nox Arcana is sold in many countries and reached #8 on Billboard (as opposed to the other bands, one of which never charted and the other only as high as #22). Also, unlike those bands, Nox Arcana is still together and still recording albums band news. To provide consistency and organization, I propose the re-creation of the Blood of Angels album article stub (sans the re-redirect). Ebonyskye (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Other Afd talks to reference: I would like to point out that, so far, the consensus is to KEEP 2 other Nox Arcana albums that Chzz also nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackthorn Asylum, including re-listing Afd for the band's 2nd album Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necronomicon (album). The majority of votes for KEEP reference the notability of the band and agree the album has received coverage. I say ditto for the Blood of Angels album. I am now working on making the Michelle Belanger article (originally started as an author's page) look more like a bio article and clean it up some. I have also updated the album article, but obviously I can't yet post that. Ebonyskye (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not every work produced by a notable artist is itself notable, even if we do not question the notability of the artist. It's not like an artist, upon once gaining fame, has the midas touch. That other album articles have been or are being kept is completely irrelevant and of no interest here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletions. In all the discussion, I haven't found anything to demonstrate that the deletion process was not properly followed. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood-of-Angels.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Please read discussion article undelete ABOVE Ebonyskye (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Close this DRV I fail to see a reason to list this and recommend close of this DRV. If the album article is restored, then obviously the image can be restored too. But, we don't need to have TWO DRVs covering this concern. One is quite enough, thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This entry should have been listed in August 29, not August 28. It is fixed now. Tim Song (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]