Talk:Radio Werewolf

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I am unsure as to why this was marked for deletion. It seems certain groups in the Church of Satan are miffed at the mention of the band due to its controversial nature, however as is indicated easily, the band gathered a large cult following in the 1980s and was acclaimed for their experimental nature.

They have released a number of albums and singles, and their interviews and documentary were quite heavily featured, and continue to be. Deleting this page would make no sense, as they have a significantly larger following and a significantly more developed band act than most of the deathrock bands of the 1980s did, and they all have wikipedia pages for themselves. I would point the administrators to Skeletal Family, or Kommunity FK, both of which had significantly less media exposure than this band.

There are hundreds of videos of the band directly listed on Youtube, with thousands of views on them, and there are a handful of websites mentioning them, as well as numerous blogs, including the abraxas365 blog which has essentially featured everything they ever did. I'd also mention their appearance at the 8-8-88 rally in San Francisco, which was the largest gathering of Satanists ever recorded in history. In the near future, pages will be added for Nikolas Schreck and Zeena Lavey, if enough time is allowed to find information, and if the articles are protected from deletion, as both were properly sourced and cited before their deletion about a year ago, until someone deleted them for no reason.

Additionally it may be worth noting the band has two myspace pages- one official one fan made. It may be worth adding the article to the deathrock subgroup, or to laveyyan satanism, as both fronting members were laveyyan satanists in the latter years of the bands existence.

Twarwick666 (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the guidelines for notability for bands. I'm not concerned with the CoS's ecuminical politics, the article just doesn't have any reliable sources (personal websites don't count) demonstrating notability. Just releasing albums doesn't count. You don't have any sources that demonstrate the claimed controversy either. Anyone can put videos on youtube, those do not count as reliable sources, those do not demonstrate notability. Anyone can make a blog, those do not count as reliable sources. Anyone can make a myspace page, those do not demonstrate notability. If those articles were properly sourced, they would not have been deleted. Reliable sources are magazines, books, documentaries, news programs, and the like. Blogs, youtube videos, and personal websites do not count. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the cited sources is an interview pdf file used on the German article for the same band. This is from a magazine intervieew covering most of the topics discussed in the article. WHy would this be acceptable for an article on one language and not for another?

Also, Radio Werewolf released the documentary "Charles Manson Superstar" and so this should count as a documentary source, as the band itself in its later incarnation released it. As I mentioned before though, since this band was mainly part of a subculture it wasn't featured on mainstream media except on Geraldo Rivera's show several times, and by small time magazines which would not necessarily be available. Most of the other deathrock bands fall into this same category, but their articles on wikipedia remain uncontested? Most of them don't have any sources except their band myspace, yet I have managed to find several legitimate sources.

Twarwick666 (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Zinnober doesn't appear to meet the reliable source guidelines, I can't find any evidence of editorial oversite, and the German Wikipedia does not bother to mention Zinnober as a magazine at all. Here are the reliable source guidelines. Them releasing a documentary is a self-published source, and would count as their work. Their own documentary is not a source independant of the subject. I've posted a summary of the reliable source guidelines on your talk page, I recommend looking them over. If you can provide a source for them being mentioned on Geraldo Rivera's show, though, that would count. Also, those other articles which only have myspace pages for their sources aren't supposed to be up, I'd appreciate being pointed to which ones you mean so I can tag those for deletion as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does one add a magazine as a source? I found one in the magazine "The Music Connection" called "Who Needs A Record Deal When You Are Busy Taking Over The World".

Twarwick666 (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)With <ref>reference tags like this</ref>. I explained this to you on your talk page. Why don't you actually read the summary of the guidelines I gave you? Also, The Music Connection does not appear to be a major publication. I recommend reading the reliable source guidelines, it would save you and me a lot of time. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Werewolf in the media

Since you said documentaries and news programs would serve as reason for Radio Werewolf's legitimacy on Wikipedia, maybe these videos would be of importance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx0kRUOzrxI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQIcB0RTDlA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO7rO_jduao

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDNhY37bSDg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVX3DdJ_i-A - They talk about Radio Werewolf towards the end.

Rammstein Viking (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Sorry, there was an edit conflict. Youtube videos are not acceptable sources, but I'll check those when I can to see if the documentaries and news programs are acceptable. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB as a source

The IMBD is not a reliable source, and does not demonstrate notability, it is user-generated. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two magazine citations, and am currently looking for more. I own the magazines personally so I can attest to their validity, but I may be able to get more sources if given enough time.

Twarwick666 (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do those magazines meet the reliable source guidelines? Verifiability is what matters, not personal claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also have two sources (I have the broadcast dates and titles from the original broadcasts) from television shows from 1985. These can be verified I suppose through youtube as for their existence- one is a segment done by Tom Metzger of the KKK and the other is a radio/television broadcast from LA called Rock Renaissance. I am going to try and reference those now. Twarwick666 (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A user called NON1969 MAN has attacked this article and the article I made for Nikolas Schreck. I am giving fair warning here for them to please not do that again, you deliberately inserted a bunch of spam into both articles and you didn't even take the time to source them or make sure they were spelled properly. Also, stop advertising books on the pages please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twarwick666 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Collaborators

I petition to keep the list of collaborators in order of priority given to those who produced the greatest share of product in addition to all total years of service to the group/Order; therefore I've organised the names in the info box according to deserved output of product per years in service to the group. Please let's keep this in the proper historical context. While many Americans like the "look" of "L.A. Guy Bands" & original line-up of Radio Werewolf did produce a good album, the fact is: Much more was produced, performed, diversified, innovated and risked in the solo & latter phases of Radio Werewolf. The second phase RW left a lasting mark on the European audiences who were privileged enough to see them in the day. Want to contest it, there's the gauntlet!

Any way to get some photos of Zeena in here too? For all of her musical influence (50% on all recordings!) and all of her artistic, stage/costume & graphic design of the band in its second phase, think she could have representation on this entry?

Got2Bthere (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]