Talk:Silver Ash

Visual kei

I tried to include this in my edit summary, but it cut off.

Regarding the removal of "visual kei" references: the visual kei statement is sourced. If you have a reliable source which states that Japanese ethnicity is a requirement for belonging to the visual kei genre (I have never seen such a thing), please cite it and include it in the article rather than simply deleting visual kei references. Ibanez100 (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability

I removed the prod as, while the band may be on the borderline of notability, I believe that it is indeed notable according to WP:BAND #7: "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." Visual kei is a notable style and as far as I know, Silver Ash is the most prominent (also supposedly the first) visual kei band from China.

The article absolutely needs work, more citations and more sources, and I am hoping a Chinese speaker will take interest in it as I suspect source hunting in Chinese would be more fruitful than in English. Ibanez100 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Passing #7 has two possibilities; a: "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style", they obviously fail this as it would be a visual kei band that is very popular, or b: "the most prominent of the local scene of a city", they fail this because they are the only visual kei band (therefore there isn't a scene) in China (a country not a city). They fail #7, therefore they fail to pass WP:BAND and the article should be deleted. Xfansd (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

In their country, they are the most prominent representative of a notable style. I would think that being the most prominent visual kei band in their country makes them yet more notable than if they were only the most prominent visual kei band in their city, though they are that too: since they are the most prominent visual kei band in China then of course they are also the most prominent visual kei band in Beijing. I would also think that being the only band of their type would make them yet more prominent than if there were several others of their type (a scene), though for that matter, do we know for sure that there aren't other visual kei bands in Beijing? Anyway, in my view being the most prominent representative of a notable style in an entire country means this band is actually more notable than the bare minimum requirements of #7, and therefore the article should be fixed rather than simply deleted. Ibanez100 (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"I would also think that being the only band of their type would make them yet more prominent"; the criteria uses scene, if they are the only band of their type then there isn't a scene. We also cannot think "being the most prominent in an entire country" is equivalent or greater to "most prominent in a city", the criteria says in a city therefore we must use city and cannot assume anything else.

Even if they are from Beijing, which we can't verify because there is no source, currently there are no sources to verify other Chinese visual kei bands. Therefore again there is no scene and currently the article should be deleted. And let's just forget about WP:BAND for a second, this article doesn't even pass WP:GNG it has one source, that is not "significant coverage". We cannot sit around "hoping someone Chinese will add sources" as you said above, I've looked and I assume you've looked too and there simply isn't any. Xfansd (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BAND is a list of minimum criteria. Saying that being the most prominent band of a notable style in their country is not notable because #7 says "city" but does not explicitly mention "country" is like saying that a band with two certified gold records fails WP:BAND #2 because #2 says "a record" and does not explicitly mention what happens if the band has two.

After not long searching in English I came up with this [1], which confirms the existence of other Chinese visual kei bands and therefore a scene. It also talks about Silver Ash having toured China, which goes some distance toward also qualifying the band for notability under WP:BAND #4. I've added a little info from this source to the article to help verify notability, but even more info from this source could be added.

As for WP:GNG, note that sources are not required to be in English. That's why I am hoping a Chinese speaker will take interest. Ibanez100 (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

A city and a country are two different things, but having two certified gold records means they have "at least one", which is what #3 says (which is the # I think you were actually talking about?), therefore the band would pass.

But anyway, I suppose that source helps verify a scene exists, therefore passing the article as a weak keep. I know the language of the source doesn't matter, but a Chinese speaker is not going to touch the article and it's gonna sit on Wikipedia a mess, with minimal content, and with just two sources, just like the past 6 years. Xfansd (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I did mean #3, my mistake. However, what you said about #3 illustrates my point: WP:BAND lists minimum criteria. If a band is the most prominent in a notable style in at minimum a city, then a band that is the most prominent in a notable style in an entire country is also notable.

But regardless, I'm glad you now are in favor of keeping the article. There's no deadline, and the article is very salvageable - it's no worse than the countless poorly-sourced articles about Japanese musicians that have also sat around for years, and in fact is better-sourced and more encyclopedic than many of them. Just needs sources and a little minor cleanup. How do you know a Chinese speaker is not going to touch the article? Have you tried asking for help at the China WikiProject or some other applicable place? If not, let's. Ibanez100 (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)