Talk:Symphony of Heaven
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Suspected public relations editing
editThe article's creator just uploaded a photo which they identified themselves as the copyright owner, but it's an identical scaled down version of photo from the band's official website. This either means the editor downloaded the photo off the band's site and uploaded it as their own photo, or the uploader works with the band or "Return to Dust Promotions" (the management company identified on band's site) and took the photo to supply for publicity purposes, which would require a disclosure here, which they have not done so. Graywalls (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I've found strong evidence of article creator's relationship to the article as well as music marketing companies. Private evidence has been submitted to functionaries. Although a little bit of intuitive search would come to the conclusion, I'm not allowed to post the exact details here per WP:OUTING Graywalls (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Image removed
editThe image that was introduced in this edit without an edit summary has been removed form commons. It was identical to the image on the band's official page and was uploaded by the article's creator as their own image. Graywalls (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Metal Onslaught Magazine as a source
editWhen you go to the band's official page, it lists the contact as "Return to Dust Promotions". Upon searching that company, Google result snippet suggests the magazine is closely related by ownership.
It is used eight times and the source in search result says:
I am the drummer for Symphony of Heaven, Timoratus, Ascending King, The Thlipsis, Mystic Winter, and several others. In addition to my work with the aforementioned artists, I am a writer and manager for The Metal Onslaught Magazine, owner of Return to Dust Promotions, and a co-host for the Life of Defiance Podcast.
The magazine's manager is Symphony of Heaven's band member, and the owner of the band's promotion company. Definitely fails NPOV and independent source criteria. Graywalls (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for discovering this. Coincidentally, I'd recently encountered The Metal Onslaught completely separately. It might be reliable (might not, idk) in other circumstances, but I absolutely agree that in this instance it's a massive COI and any "coverage" should be treated as a self-published source about itself.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Proposed merge of The Season of Death into Symphony of Heaven
editdebatable if this album meets WP:NALBUM to have its own article. Graywalls (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- If anything, I'd say the album, at present, is more notable than the band.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- do you see indication that band meets NALBUM? If not, perhaps delete both maybe the solution. Graywalls (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Graywalls it's on the threshold of notability. The HM and Metal Resource coverage are significant. The Metal Onslaught give significant coverage as well, but it's too closely affiliated with the subject. Blacforje Magazine doesn't have enough of a writing team - it's what you've described recently as one dude and his friend having a blog. Voight has credentials but he needs to build up more than a staff team and reputation before that source is reliable for more than interview statements of a band about itself, or, if Voight writes the article, as a self-published expert (which means no biography of living person statements). So basically I'm only seeing two sources that give significant coverage and typically you need three. That there are different writers from the same websites might count, or they might be seen as the same source. So I think it's close and within a few years it might get that coverage, but it might be best to delete for now. I will say I have created articles with about the same amount of coverage, some of which then got deleted. Could go either way. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- It does have coverage from Teeth of the Divine and Metal Underground, which I have always presumed to be unreliable, but I'm not sure my skepticism is warranted. I'll try and look through past discussions and see if I can find anything, and if not, I'll bring them up at RS/N.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- @3family6:, Although this isn't quite a clear cut matter, I don't believe WP:EXPERTSPS should be used so liberally. Journalists often have sources as their "go to" meaning someone accessible on a short notice and willing to interview. For example, lawn care company owner who wants to talk about the effect of weather on lawn care and lawn care tips in hot weather. This does not make that business' website an acceptable "expert source" on lawn care business even if he happens to be quoted often in local news outlets. If he's cited often as subject matter expert in landscape architecture related professional publications, that might bring it closer.
- A band member or a zine often quoted by other bloggers is similar. On the other hand, the website of James W. Loewen that was self-published by him is usable for area of his expertise, and he is widely cited. If you disagree, you could always start a discussion whether Voight satisfies WP:EXPERTSPS in a particular topic area. Graywalls (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Graywalls Voight is an expert because he was managing editor and content writer at a reliable and notable publication, HM. To go back to your Vogue example you've used before, Blacforje would be the equivalent of Vogue's managing editor starting up their own fashion website with a friend of their's. They might not have meaningful editorial oversight, but they would be reliable as a subject matter expert when it doesn't involve BLP statements.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Or, to use your above example, Voight isn't the source, he's the journalist. Indeed, he managed the journalists. He'd be a subject-matter expert because of that prior experience. For purposes of this article, Blackforje doesn't establish notability even if he is excepted as an expert, because he also covered the band for HM. An author writing for two different publications still counts as a single source, I believe, for notability purposes.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- It has to do with whether he's been personally cited in various sources in the way I described earlier. Using your perspective, we'll end up a bunch of articles on snowboarding, fishing and sort of thing with links to various outdoor shops citing that the owner/manager is a subject matter expert from his previous experience as a Bass Pro management position and trying to use the shop's website as a basis for some local brand notability. If a Vogue's managing editor started their own website, it would likely not be a WP:RS and certainly not be for something for holding weight in notability. Graywalls (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood why I brought up Blacforje and Voight in the first place. I was looking through the article to see if it's actually notable. I was contending that Blacforje isn't RS, at least not for notability. Voigt's writings on that site (not those of Hawkins, who doesn't have credentials) could potentially count as subject expertise (just as Vogue's managing editor, or a fashion journalist for the magazine, would be credible to make claims about fashion, or fashion journalism), but in this case it doesn't help with notability, anyway, since Voigt wrote one of the HM pieces used in this article.
- I have to correct myself - he wasn't managing editor at HM, but a journalist and social media director. I have no idea how I got that confused. Still, Voigt could, generally, be considered an expert in music journalism, because he's a seasoned music journalist for several significant publications: I also found that he's written for Christianity Today, Relevant, CCM Magazine, The Gospel Coalition, and others. That's about as credentialed as you can get as a journalist for his subject areas. He's written for publications that have millions of readers. He's a gold standard source for this subject. But, that's all tangential to the issue at hand, as, as I said above, his own independent work doesn't contribute to notability in this case.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you have specific usage example in mind, I think this is a good RS/N discussion material. Graywalls (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- I don't, this was tangential. It would potentially be applicable here in a deletion discussion, if Voigt wasn't a source as an HM reviewer, which definitely takes precedence as a more solid source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you have specific usage example in mind, I think this is a good RS/N discussion material. Graywalls (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- It has to do with whether he's been personally cited in various sources in the way I described earlier. Using your perspective, we'll end up a bunch of articles on snowboarding, fishing and sort of thing with links to various outdoor shops citing that the owner/manager is a subject matter expert from his previous experience as a Bass Pro management position and trying to use the shop's website as a basis for some local brand notability. If a Vogue's managing editor started their own website, it would likely not be a WP:RS and certainly not be for something for holding weight in notability. Graywalls (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Or, to use your above example, Voight isn't the source, he's the journalist. Indeed, he managed the journalists. He'd be a subject-matter expert because of that prior experience. For purposes of this article, Blackforje doesn't establish notability even if he is excepted as an expert, because he also covered the band for HM. An author writing for two different publications still counts as a single source, I believe, for notability purposes.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Graywalls Voight is an expert because he was managing editor and content writer at a reliable and notable publication, HM. To go back to your Vogue example you've used before, Blacforje would be the equivalent of Vogue's managing editor starting up their own fashion website with a friend of their's. They might not have meaningful editorial oversight, but they would be reliable as a subject matter expert when it doesn't involve BLP statements.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Graywalls it's on the threshold of notability. The HM and Metal Resource coverage are significant. The Metal Onslaught give significant coverage as well, but it's too closely affiliated with the subject. Blacforje Magazine doesn't have enough of a writing team - it's what you've described recently as one dude and his friend having a blog. Voight has credentials but he needs to build up more than a staff team and reputation before that source is reliable for more than interview statements of a band about itself, or, if Voight writes the article, as a self-published expert (which means no biography of living person statements). So basically I'm only seeing two sources that give significant coverage and typically you need three. That there are different writers from the same websites might count, or they might be seen as the same source. So I think it's close and within a few years it might get that coverage, but it might be best to delete for now. I will say I have created articles with about the same amount of coverage, some of which then got deleted. Could go either way. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- do you see indication that band meets NALBUM? If not, perhaps delete both maybe the solution. Graywalls (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Routine and trivia from primary and former/current band member based blogs/webzines
edit@3family6:, please consider not re-adding contents that probably originated from a PR/COI editor that what I have already removed. While primary source isn't explicitly prohibited, per WP:PSTS, the article should be predominantly based on reliable, independent secondary sources. Anything that can not be reliably proven must not be added, but verifiability does not guarantee inclusion per WP:ONUS. There is no consensus to include what you have just re-added. I am objecting to this, because Wikipedia is not a website, so we're not going to host they did this, they released this, they went here, they announced this, just because it happened per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Wikipedia is not the band's second website or social media outlet. So please either gain consensus for the re-introduction or remove your re-addition.Graywalls (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)