Talk:Mouth of the Architect

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio.

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

Notability

I'm very curious how this article currently meets WP:BAND. We only cite one source, so #1 doesn't count because "multiple non-trivial published works" is not met. #2, 3, 8, 9, and 11 are out because there is no mention of any awards/competition/charting. The last sentence of the lead could meet #4, however there is no citation of "non-trivial coverage", so as of now it does not meet #4. #5 if out because Translation Loss is not an important indie label. There is no mention of any member which would meet #6. #7 and 10 is out because it isn't mentioned let alone cited for verification. And there is no mention of anything that would meet #12. So until the article meets the standards for notability for a band here on wikipedia, the notability tag should stay in place. This tag simply is saying the article needs to be expanded or rewritten to establish notability. It is not saying the band is not notable (if the band wasn't notable, the article would qualify for speedy deletion). I'm convinced that this article can be brought up to standards (but I could be wrong). But we should all recognize that currently, the article simply does not establish notability, in accordance with WP:BAND. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I guess I didn't read the notability page as clearly as I thought I had. Sorry about that. Anyway, I'm trying to get some sources to pass either #1 or #4 (or both); I don't know if what I found counts as "non-trivial" (clearly you are the expert on that). Also, what defines an "important" indie label? That's not very well clarified anywhere. Anyway, yeah. Also, does performing on the Eyehategod (a very notable band) tribute count for anything? = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 17:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reverse order: appearing on For the Sick doesn't count for that much because there are a number of bands on the album which are not notable (but it does count for something in the grand scheme of things). "Important" when it comes to indie label is a bit subjective, but the guidelines do state an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable. I do not believe Translation Loss counts for this because they only have ~28 total releases in their history, they are relatively new, and not many of the bands are notable. As for non-trivial sourcing, it would be nice if a mainstream, or well known indie publication had a record review, expose, or other coverage which focused on the band. Even a show review could work, but it's important that this coverage comes from an independent source, meaning not the band or label's website, and it's important that it isn't self-published, such as a blog entry. I think what you have done is an improvement, but it still isn't quite there. I hope this gives you a better idea of what needs to be done. Thanks for understanding, and working hard to address these notability issues. Here is an idea I have come up with: create a history section that discussed their albums, and use reviews of these albums as citations (making sure to try to use more mainstream as opposed to self-published sources). I found a review on about.com, among other places, so I'm pretty convinced now that this band can meet notability requirements. All that is left is for that to be shown through the article.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll take a look around the internet some more and see what I can dig up. Thanks for the help. = ∫_t^c 5th Eye 20:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mouth of the Architect. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712213339/http://highbeamreview.com/review.php?id=255 to http://highbeamreview.com/review.php?id=255

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]