Talk:Deliverance (metal band)

Second Deliverance Band

I'd like to make an article about another Christian rock band named Deliverance. Any idea how best to name it? Thanks.--Eva ^db 08:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the proper way is to distinct other Deliverance by it's genre - or alternatively by some other disctintive informal and self-explanatory attribute. You could ask Wiki gurus for the exact solution. Hiilidioksidi 00:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The "other" Deliverance can now be found Here.--Eva ^bd 23:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Former Members

Wanted to ask before an edit war happens.

This Brian Khairullah - Bass (1985-1989); has since renounced his faith and has unflattering things to say about his time in the band under former members, I just have to ask what does this have to do with Deliverance? I guess I understand the importance of the information for that particular person on their own page, but on the band page I don't understand as much. I guess I look at like Scott Douglas and Whiteheart, what he did had an impact on the band. This guy's renouncing of faith doesn't impact the band in any way. So are we going to start putting info on every former member on this page just because they don't have separate pages? And to add this has nothing with the fact that the guys gave up for faith. In fact I think this would better suited in a section in the christian metal main article about players who have renounced their faith, like Gary Lenaire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OfficialDoughboy (talk • contribs) 06:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It reflects on how well the core members screen the band members when they join. I would like to move it into the prozse section since it doesn't belong in the members section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I see the point but you are bringing a new dimension that never existed before. What I mean is I never heard this criticism of the band before. Deliverance has always been criticized for their lyrics, dress, music and perceived copying of other bands (metallica in particular.) These are documented areas of criticism, because there never was a high level of sophistication to the attacks, they always came down to the simple. Parents (church parents) would condemn them on sound and dress, people who didn't like their christian side would say things like you can't mix metal and christianity because of the "rules" and claimed they copied other popular styles. I never heard someone delve into the area of challenging the individual faiths of the band. I would say there were people who questioned their faiths but not individually. Even Dial the Truth Ministries didn't have the time to go that deep.

So I guess what you are getting at is that all the bands should have have a table for their members section and have a where are they now section to address their faith? Again I don't think that serves an article on Deliverance but a separate section or article on the subject, one that would probably start with Roger Martinez in the christian metal side. But again his lost in faith didn't affect the band at the time of his involvement. Unless you are saying this is a Scott Douglas or Victor Macias (Tourniquet) matter. A member change that directly affected the bands course and history. 71.224.103.120 (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a table is necessary. The fact that Khairullah has come out as vehemently as he has is the reason it's included here. Wikipedia policy is that non-notable members should be listed on the band's page. Also, as I said, it should be included as prose in the article, not next to the member's entry. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The change is exactly what I would have done if I had the time. Good work! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I figured it was the best way to compromise. I'm going to add some more stuff let me know what you think. Specifically I'm thinking of adding a controversy section to deal with the the Saviour Machine fallout and putting some of the complaints about Jimmy there. http://tinpan.fortunecity.com/laudanum/622/article.html - Is what I'm talking about. OfficialDoughboy (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Members

Okay I don't know why but I'm on a mission to clean a lot of the page up, feel free to change something if you see something that is wrong.

So I looked at the members page and went to Deliverance's myspace page and went through the history and got the years for each member. I eliminated the honorary members section because I don't see a reason for it as I can't remember Jimmy mentioning this ever in an interview, please prove me wrong if he did :)

Also I'm wondering if I should include all the studio members who played on the albums. I found some info on other guys who played on albums but wasn't sure if they should be added because they were mainly guest musicians.

Any thoughts?OfficialDoughboy (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Other than 2010 being cut off it looks good. As for studio musicians, I don't know that I've seen that in with other bands, but it wouldn't hurt. The only thing is their time with the band would be a blip as opposed to a solid line. I have seen individual albums be marked with a vertical line. See Petra (band) and Delirious? for examples. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Working on it, I got the idea from Petra. I think for most christian bands a visual timeline of members is a must seeing as they have so much fluxuation. I'll have it done in a little bit.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deliverance (metal band). 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/20070930235236/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=68859 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=68859
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207065936/http://blogs.myspace.com:80/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view to http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=267217971&blogId=495823910

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Rooting for webhost type contents

@3family6:, specifically, statements about living people should adhere to BLP stanards. WP:PRESERVE shouldn't be used to rationalize dumping "about us" type contents, then burdening editors to find sources rather than holding the inserting party accountable to come up with verification, as well as demonstrate the inclusion is due. Purging totally undue, self-promotional, resource guide esque contents absolute is an improvement. Graywalls (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls I was referring specifically to blanking the entire first section about the 1980s and 1990s history of the band, which was easily verifiable from a source in the article and thus salvageable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, that favors PUBLIC RELATIONS EDITING EFFORT to dump contents, then put the burden on properly presenting it on editors. Why are you making it an issue now rather than fixing it before I even came along? You had all the time to do so. Graywalls (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls who's making it into an issue? I made a comment when I did the work. I was happy to leave it at that, you were the one who insisted on bringing this onto the talk page to turn it into an argument.

Since you want to have that argument about the substance of your edit, simply blanking an article or an article section is not an improvement to an article, especially when subsequent sections grammatically refer to the now blanked content. Improving would be removing the promotional public relations editing and retaining the verifiable information. If it can't be fixed, then the content should be removed. I referred to WP:PRESERVE to try and be helpful in case you weren't aware of that guideline. It's a balance between that and WP:BURDEN. Perhaps you took my comment as more aggressive than I had meant it to be, and if its brevity communicated hostility, I'm sorry for conveying that tone. It's difficult for anyone to be aware of all the different policies and guidelines, which is one reason why WP:IAR is one of the core pillars of the project. Ignore whatever rules you need to to improve the project. My comment was arguing that trashing the entire sections of articles, especially articles that actually have verifiable sources provided, just not properly cited, does not improve the project. Indeed, that's why blanking article content is strongly frowned upon unless it's emergency actions against libel on BLPs. That someone else didn't take time out of their busy schedule to fix an article doesn't mean you should willy-nilly delete verifiable content to the detriment of the article body. But, your concerns are why, after your edit here, I reached out to you to say that if you see an article that you feel needs more immediate attention rather than having me gradually get to it eventually, let me know. This project (Wikipedia) should be a collaboration, not a fight.3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages are not a bulletin board or the subject's "about us" page. When it is used as such, it becomes a webhost, rather than a encyclopedia. The page shouldn't be about the size or length. A page of few sentences is not inferior to five pages of junk. Graywalls (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I said nothing of size or length. I'm talking about this edit that blanked an entire section. I actually fully agree that "A page of few sentences is not inferior to five pages of junk." So why then completely blank the content, which is disruptive, than reduce the article to something like "Deliverance was a Christian thrash metal band that formed in the 1980s, that release [list of albums and years that they came out]"? That's what I was referring to. in fact, that is what I did. I added a few sentences and cited a source. My edit summary was referring to the complete blanking of that first section which had some very basic and verifiable content. That's disruptive. The issue has now been resolved, anyway. Can we drop this, now?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Genre

As summarized at WP:A/S, multiple discussions across over a decade at RS/N and WP:ALBUMS have agreed that the AllMusic sidebar is unreliable for genre descriptions. Prose descriptions attributable to an author, on the other hand, are usually reliable. The genres I listed in the infobox - Christian metal, thrash metal, speed metal, and alternative rock, are from the prose biography.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)