This redirect 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
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
Hello all, this is SuperLuigi83, a regular Wikipedia fan, and hopefully like most of you, a Black Sabbath fan. While we can all hopefully agree After Forever is a great song, it does not seem we can all agree whether it deserves a Wikipedia page or not. For example, there is evidence around showing the song's single is actually a bootleg and is not official. This would invalidate the song's inclusion as a Wikipedia page, but on top of that, Black Sabbath is wrongfully labeled as a rock band here when they are actually a heavy metal band and are properly labeled as such on most of their other song's pages. Finally, the two genres, heavy metal and Christian metal, lack any sources. These issues would extend to the Fairies Wear Boots page, since that song is the B-side to the seemingly unofficial After Forever single. I don't know about you, but these points, along with a general lack of sources on either page, qualifies these pages as candidates for deletion. SuperLuigi83 (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the thing is, the page as is, does not actually give a source proving the single's existence. The only two sources online that mention the single in any capacity are Discogs and Rate Your Music, both notoriously unreliable, however both sources do list the single as unofficial. Outside of that, no evidence proving the single is official online. Given the weak evidence either way, I feel it's best that we do away with this particular page. SuperLuigi83 (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it was performed live at Ozzfest 1999. It clearly exists, yes? A quick google search pulls up lots of sources, people discussing the song, videos of it on YouTube, as well as an apparent remaster this year. Squeeyote (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are not aware of the qualifications needed for the song to have a Wikipedia page. Obviously, the song After Forever is real, but a song needs to meet a level of noteworthiness to have a Wikipedia page. That include being a single, such as with this song, but the thing is, the evidence backing up this song's official status is weak, and the amount of sources labeling it as unofficial, while also weak, being Discogs and Rate Your Music, are at least slightly stronger. In other words, there is no official source saying the single of After Forever is official, henceforth invalidating the song from having a Wikipedia page. SuperLuigi83 (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been editing for this site for longer than you think. Just because I'm under a different username now doesn't mean I'm not experienced with this site and in it's inner workings, and if there's anything to be known, it's that if you can't prove something to exist, than you should assume it doesn't. There is no reliable source proving the existence of an After Forever single, I've researched deeply into this topic and have come back empty handed. There is no way to prove this single is official. The page as is, has no information proving the single's officialness. The fact you accuse me of being a "newbie" shows that not in fact have a valid argument towards the single's existence. Until you can present viable evidence showing the single is in fact official, my support towards the deletion of this article will remain. SuperLuigi83 (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to attempt a gotcha, but I'm unfamiliar with the specific criteria for speedy deletion for allegedly bootleg music. Would you be so kind as to point me towards the relevant G-code? Squeeyote (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings, and related items) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." and "A single requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Even if otherwise notable, material about a single may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting."
This comes directly from the page "Notability (music)" Since there is no evidence given backing up this single's so called official status, it is therefore not notable enough to warrant having a page. No other point in the article is given to back up the song's level of noteworthiness. SuperLuigi83 (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the notability requirements, not the speedy deletion criteria. Speedy deletion is meant for situations in which it's necessary that admins bypass standard deletion discussion to delete an article out of hand. May I suggest you avoid that course of action, and perhaps propose standard deletion instead if you must, so that it can be hashed out publicly without endangering an established article with sudden deletion without discourse first? Squeeyote (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's weird. I had though I'd put the article up for standard deletion, not speedy deletion. I might've put something in wrong there. My goal was to put the article up for standard deletion. Speedy deletion it does not in fact need, but standard deletion is something I'm still on board with. Really, we just need a concrete source calling the single official before I rest my case. SuperLuigi83 (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article's age has nothing to do with it's credibility either. Sometimes misinformation can just fly under the radar, and that seems to be the case here. SuperLuigi83 (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the page needs to be deleted outright either. It does however need some form of noteworthiness to back up the song having a Wikipedia page through a reliable source. SuperLuigi83 (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'd better get to looking! In spite of the exceedingly mild foible with the deletion, thank you for your passionate commitment to the improvement of Wikipedia. Squeeyote (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
