A few days ago i tried to add the band called Sodomisery but the band got rejected.here is the message i received:

This band has been rejected by the moderators for the following reason:

"a 15 minute digital only release doesn't quality as a valid release for this site. Sorry man - but that's just too short based on the rules we go by for digital only releases. "

I could get your point guys.Giving me this "following the rules bla bra thing". If you would actually follow those rules.
Unfortunately you might need extra moderators to follow the moderators that are supposed to do a good and fair job.And i come with 2 examples.Only 2...

you say you "metal encyclopaedia " accepts only metal.Check this profile out:

https://www.metal-archives.com/artists/Denisa/221989

and here is some stuff form youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBlN4vivyLU

The moderator who checked the application and accepted it did a very good job guys.Congrats! The girl is dead,but she never played metal.She played some gypsy traditional music and most of the people who enjoy that type of music hate metal heads.Belive me i got my share.
Nothing to do with metal.Still accepted.yeah i know it is in the RIP section but still accepted as a metal artist:)

Then, here is something close to my case:

https://www.metal-archives.com/albums/A ... 995/129504

Sodomisery got rejected for having an EP shorter than 20 minutes.But that doesn't apply to As I Lay Dying from Austria ,right?:) That is too fair guys!!:)

I thought you were an encyclopaedia that wants to contain info about all metal bands in the word.I was expecting you to do that accept bands,doing that good job that you are trying to do,helping bands to get promoted,helping listeners to find info.About metal bands.Active/non active,with or without full albums.
I am an old school guy.I still like to check a band website even though everyone says that nowadays a Facebook profile is all that matters.I always found your website being a good example to prove this that they were wrong.It seems not...

Sodomisery is new band,one year old,They have realised an EP and they have material for a whole album that will be released this year.The band was formed by members from Katatonia/Diabolical/Netherbird.It comes from a country and a city with a lot of history in metal and with a lot of resources.
A band is a band i I have given you all the proofs that they exist and they are active.This is a way you do it.These are the steps.You start a band,you start rehearsing,release a demo,then comes an album.But you are still a band until you release that full album ,right?You can't start a band in the same they when you release the album.And again,I thought you were an encyclopaedia for metal bands...
Sorry guys you are not fair.The reason you gave me was not fair.And accepting so many others,some not being metal at all..some having the same issues as Sodomisery makes it even worse!

All the best with your encyclopaedia !!

Morgulenstein

PS:I will also donate by Paypal for you.I support the cause ,i still think your idea is was great

Post here: https://www.metal-archives.com/board/vi ... =3&t=64985

And consolidate the case you want to make, although it seems quite clear cut. Digital-only bands need to have a release that meets the minimum requirements - this doesn't apply to physical releases. This is why As I Lay Dying is accepted, they released 50 copies of that tape. Physical releases have more permanence than digital Bandcamp "albums."

Sorry, but read the first post in that thread, you shouldn't be making arguments like this, so let me extract this from that thread:

5. Comparing bands (don't)

This may seem like the obvious course of action in some cases, but be advised that we generally frown upon arguments like "you have band A listed and band B is similar, hence you must also accept band B". Please avoid this, as it comes with the following problems:
1) We simply do not work that way. Each band is assessed and judged on its own merit and trying to compare two distinct bands is treacherous business, even if they may sound similar. And if the two are indeed sonic carbon copies, perhaps the listed one should be deleted instead.
2) Since the site lists a (very) small number of non-metal exceptions, one might be tempted to use them as a reference point. However, these are exactly that, exceptions, and not subject to our guidelines on music.
3) Slippery slope. We do not want to base further inclusions solely on one or more listed band(s) that might be questionable or were wrongly approved to begin with. We would rather (re-)assess the proposed inclusion and the compared listed band(s) on their own instead of expanding a part of the database based around repeated instances of a resigned "we'll, we have this, why not this as well?". See item 1). To be clear, nobody thinks that we'd otherwise be doomed to ride into fallacy territory and in danger of including BB King or whatever, but we are quite strict about keeping the database focussed.
4) Most importantly, the Archives can in some ways be seen as a database of metal releases rather than bands. What that means is that in order to gain entry, a band only needs one predominantly metal release (ideally a full-length), regardless of the rest of their discography. This can result in bands starting out as metal, but changing to non-metal later or the reverse. More subtle cases exist, with bands being listed based on a (possibly lesser-known) fraction of their discography. So how does this connect to comparing bands? Well, it's simple: Since we judge releases, comparing band A as a whole to band B as a whole is a fallacious argument when one is actually comparing non-metal output of band A (accepted based on their metal output) to non-metal output of band B (unacceptable because they have no metal output). Consider it one level above arguing that band B should be included because they have a few songs as metal as band A's releases.

So again, each band is judged individually and we don't do the blind approach "A, hence also B".