Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relics of the Chozo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DorfDepp (talk | contribs) at 13:08, 8 February 2007 (changed my vote from keep to redirect). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Relics of the Chozo

Relics of the Chozo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fan-released collaborative album that does not meet the notability requirements for musical works on Wikipedia. No results for this album at All Music Guide. No sources whatsoever except for the project website, which violates WP:V as this is not a third-party source.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason given above. Note that these projects were all released in collaboration with the same website, Overclocked Remix:

Kong in Concert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hedgehog Heaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Repercussions of Fowl Lamentation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rise of the Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Dark Side of Phobos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chrono Symphonic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Blood on the Asphalt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Project Chaos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Chardish 01:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The site staff carefully picks out submitted music to be posted to the site through a rigorous quality control system. A similar system is in place for determining the validity of official album projects. With regards to notability, OCReMix as a site is considered notable. This has been established. Among other reasons, this is because it fulfills point six in the music notability guidelines: "# Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." OCReMix is verifiably the pioneer of the genre of video game music rearrangements and is easily the most prominent site in the field.
Now, consider the following. OCReMix as an abstract concept did not pioneer the genre. It's fame and notability is derived from the music itself, which is created by various artists who submit to the site and go through the evaluated process. Without said music, which is created by supposedly "non-notable" artists, OCR would not have gotten off the ground at all. The site exists, and is constantly growing in popularity, because there is a community of skilled artists that contribute to the database of music that essentially defines the site. Thus, when the same artists that made (and continue to make) OCR notable release an album officially through OCR, that album in turn is also notable.
The Time Magazine comparison is also inaccurate. Here is a better one. Let's say there is a record label, "DNA Records", that pioneers a new style of music, Jazz Metal. The artist roster consists of primarily hobbyist musicians who have no interest in doing any sort of mainstream release are not not "notable" by Wiki standards. While an obscure/esoteric genre, various print magazines and websites applaud "DNA Records" for their accomplishment and the DNA Records site becomes the #1 place for Jazz Metal. According to the logic of the people voting "delete", any actual albums the "DNA Records" label releases would be considered non-notable. This is illogical. Simply because the artists involved are not individually notable (according to Wiki guidelines), it is their collective work that defined and developed the new genre to begin with. Surely, none of you would say that an official compilation release by DNA Records would be non-notable simply because the individual artists were not! Yet, that is what many of you are saying about OCR, which is in an identical situation. Zirconst 19:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)— Zirconst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • I fixed the formatting on your post. Hope you don't mind. - Chardish 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say that the DNA Records albums would not notable. Genres are not invented - they are terms given by music reviewers and journalists to describe trends in sound. If the sound they pioneered was as truly innovative as you boast, the artists would be reviewed and discussed by reputable third-party sources, which would make the artists notable. Record companies with no notable artists are rarely themselves notable - remember that OCRemix is a notable website, not a notable record company. Furthermore, video game music remixes are nothing new, OCRemix (despite being a very good site) did not invent them, and fan releases by OCRemix volunteers are not notable. Your analogy would probably be more effective if you found a real-life example instead of resorting to the hypothetical. - Chardish 20:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it's true that OCR did not pioneer or invent the genre per se, but it is the most prominent representative as we have already established and has been cited numerous times in different forms of media, as well as by notable composers in the field. The site has done quite a bit for the genre and attracted much attention for it. Moving on, for all practical purposes, OCR is a record label. Every sound recording posted to the site is distributed and branded as an "OC ReMix". The fact that there are no physical releases is inconsequential; numerous internet-only record labels exist. While the site does not refer to itself as such, for comparative purposes OCR functions like the hypothetical "DNA Records" might - collecting sound recordings from various artists, branding them, and releasing them to the public.
You are wrong in assuming that an innovative or pioneering sound would necessarily be "reviewed and discussed by reputable third-party sources", especially if the release in question is a compilation. What if the form of music is simply not palatable to the general public or mainstream media? What if there are so many artists involved (in the case of OCR) that discussing each one of them at length would be impossible, and it would be more practical to simply talk about the general concept?
Ultimately, I think the black-and-white adherence to the notability guidelines here does not make sense when applied to something like this. I think the album guidelines were more intended for traditional labels doing traditional releases. I agree that it would not be wise to allow every tiny indie label with a basement album release to be on Wikipedia. And to that end I think the guidelines are successful. However, an allowance can and should be made for a case like OCR, which is NOT traditional either in the type of music it promotes or in how it distributes the music. These albums have been downloaded (collectively) over 110,000 times through OCR's official torrents alone, not counting the traffic from numerous HTTP mirrors. That is a truly massive number, and to write them off simply because a print publication hasn't written about them specifically would be in poor judgment. Zirconst 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)— Zirconst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • Big numbers don't mean anything in deletion debates. If you have to explain in several paragraphs why something is notable, chances are it isn't. We have objective criteria for notability because anyone can make a case like yours to explain why something that isn't notable should be on Wikipedia. If it's not an album by notable artists, and there aren't reliable third-party sources on the subject of the albums, it's not notable by Wikipedia standards. And, for purposes of objectivity, let me state that I enjoy these albums very much. They're really good. But they're not notable. - Chardish 21:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You continue to neglect to address my central point - the same point DorfDepp made. The artists that submit to OCR are what give the site its notability, much like a notable record label is only that because artists record and release music through it. Once again, as these are official album projects that represent the core of what OCR is all about (which has been established to be notable), they should be considered notable even though the individuals involved are in and of themselves not. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, if you will.
BTW the reason why I continue to write so much is that barely anyone in favor of deletion has provided any non-trivial discussion on the topic and appear to just be reading your initial post and making a cursory evaluation of the facts at hand. According to the very "Arguments to Avoid" article you linked, "delete per nom" is as invalid as my citation of # of downloads. I will remind everyone, as an earlier poster did, that the same arguments for deletion were brought up for these albums in the past and no consensus was reached. Ignoring that precedent seems unjust. Zirconst 00:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)— Zirconst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Now, here's the place where things get confusing: The argument for keeping these is "OCReMix is notable, these are distributed through OCReMix, thus these are notable as well". OCReMix is notable through WP:WEB, as a website; it's not a record label, so OCR can not confer notability to its projects through WP:MUSIC. But, these "albums" aren't really albums in the strict sense; they have no physical distribution, only distribution through the OCReMix website. They may then fall under the category of "web content" as well.
However, they'd likely fail those criteria as well, because of the previously noted lack of coverage in reliable sources, along with the fact that they are not distributed independently, only through OCReMix itself.
It is also noted that the projects are already mentioned and listed in the main OCReMix article.
My verdict: Delete and redirect to OverClocked ReMix. WarpstarRider 01:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There seems to be some outside solicitation for votes on this entry going on. Moogy (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to remind everyone nominating for deletion to please look at the following list of OCR press coverage; http://www.ocremix.org/info/Media_Coverage - verifiable mentions of these very albums from third party sources, both net-only (but non-trivial) and print. Regardless of the supposed conflict of interests I have (though I have made no effort to conceal my identity) one cannot ignore these press mentions.Zirconst 02:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)— Zirconst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • First off, we have to ignore the Slashdot postings, as those were written by members of the projects themselves (or djpretzel.) Then we are left with three sources: the Russian DVD insert, which is likely a trivial reference, the Music4Games blog entry, which is a non-notable and unreliable website, and the IGN.com reference, which merely displays the album's cover art as a picture of Sonic. The rest of the posts are about OCRemix itself, not the albums. Wikipedia's notability guidelines require multiple, non-trivial, third-party, reliable sources: none of these sources fulfill any of those requirements, and the single source for each of those three albums is not enough to satisfy notability. - Chardish 03:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into an article called List of notable OverClocked Remix songs or something. Each of the nominated articles them doesn't deserve its own article, but I believe it should get mentioned and summarised in a small section each on such a page. Just my opinion. --FlyingPenguins 04:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fan music is roughly the equivalent as fan fiction as far as notability goes, and we all know that that's always deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The legitimacy of "fan music" has been addressed in the past, OCR itself was considered as an AfD. More than enough sourcing to prove it is notable in a variety of ways, so bad comparison. 04:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I can't find an AfD for OCR; regardless, OCR is subject to a different notability guideline. It's a website, so its notability is established according to WP:WEB. The website is what is judged as a notable subject, not the individual pieces of music. The albums must meet WP:MUSIC, and they don't. WarpstarRider 05:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question If you are all going about that these articles should be deleted, then shouldn't the Projects section of the OverClocked Remix article be deleted as well? Draconiator 05:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the projects are essentially part of OCR, they can stay in that article. The problem is that they don't have notability independent of OCR, so they shouldn't have their own articles. WarpstarRider 05:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment About the press coverage link on OCR, it should be noted PC Gamer (UK) mentioned the Doom project in the November 2005 issue [1]. According to the rules, there seems to be no doubt that this doesn't satisfy the notability requirement of Wikipedia since there aren't enough noteworthy sources. Admittedly, I'm on OCR staff, but I think it's the points that matter, not the person's relation to the cause. Wesley Cho 05:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: cite it. I'm open to keeping these articles, but as it stands it is very difficult for me to evaluate whether they are notable because I don't know where the info came from—in particular, you should demonstrate some recognition of this music outside the remix website. Everyking 06:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Relics_of_the_Chozo&oldid=106560956"