Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantis Rising


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Atlantis Rising

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable recording with no third-party sources. Also, have multiple issues that aren't resolved. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * found no third party coverage myself aside from the AllMusic review already present. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 01:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Striking my vote as I haven’t gotten a chance to look over the news sources which Schminnte provided. If I remember to, I may return and give this a second look. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 06:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: After a BEFORE search, I did find coverage of the album in a book by Gary Hill (three pages, going into some depth on each song), a review from Metal.de and a paywalled review from Rockhard.de, a review from powermetal.de and a review from Nightfall in Metal Earth. Together with the Allmusic source I think this constitutes sigcov and meets WP:GNG. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 18:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am uncertain on the conventions in metal genre articles, let alone albums. In this case, combined with the foreign language sources I have found (and my inability to read them!), I do not think it would the best interest of the article for me to be the one to add these sources. I have tried, but discarded an edit already. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep at least until the references found by User:Schminnte can be looked over by someone better with those languages, to assess publication notability in the music industry. I'll try to add in what I can today, see if that makes a redirect less automatic. Rockaway.HTM (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Pray, let us not be hasty! The album 'Atlantis Rising' of Manilla Road boasts German sources, unverified due to our linguistic shortcomings. Are we to cast aside our brotherly tomes simply for their foreign tongue? It reeks of imprudence to nominate for deletion without first piercing the language barrier. Withhold your axes, until thorough examination is possible. Patience, I entreat! Jack4576 (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. The page can easily be restored should references be obtained.  Currently you are operating on "there's source" without proof. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Manilla Road - per . I see three keep votes here, but they are all predicated on the existence of a few mentions of the album, particularly in German language sources, that none of them have read. Anyone can google translate those sources, but in any case, having read them, I note these are hardly a ringing endorsement of the album. For instance, the reviewer at metal.de tells us that the album could not get positive reviews, and the reasons were obvious, the sound being muddy, drums too thin, guitars distorted etc. What we have here is a group that is notable, and one of their albums that has coverage because the group are notable. It deserves the mention it gets on Manilla Road, but there is not enough information, nor anything significant about the album sufficient that it should have an article too. Specifically the album does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sirfurboy if I've understood what you wrote correctly then it appears you're saying that the review from metal.de is invalid because it is a negative assessment of the album. To be clear, no, that is not a reason for non-notability. Coverage of the subject, regardless of its opinion on said subject, is still coverage. That is the whole point of music criticism. And if that was not what you were trying to say, then it would help if you could restate yourself as to clarify why you are rejecting that and any other sources. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 07:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No you have not understood me correctly. Apologies for not being sufficiently clear. I have said that the sources provided show that this album does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Although you would expect some mention about any album by a notable group, these reviews do not demonstrate any reason why the album itself is notable for an article. Specifically these do not meet "multiple, non-trivial", the widest catchall of those guidelines. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you say that because I've had a look at the sources just now and I'm changing my vote to keep based off of them. These are four full reviews and one large section of a book all discussing this album directly. Unless they're all known to be unreliable for some reason -- and I don't see any immediate reason to question any of them -- then this looks like a solid list to me. I wish I'd seen all that earlier when I was searching. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 11:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's interesting. This wasn't an exhaustive list that I provided, but these were the best I could find. There were some reviews in other languages that I am more unfamiliar with (I can read some French). I agree with @QuietHere's analysis. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is indeed interesting, because if the existence of a review of an album, when the album is released, and where it is an album of a notable band, were sufficient to establish notability, then it would be the case that all albums of notable bands would be inherently notable, because all such albums will generate some reviews at that point. Yet WP:NALBUMS says: Per WP:SUSTAINED, so in analysing what amounts to significant coverage for  an album that does not inherit notability, the sources must demonstrate this aspect of significance. They must be sustained, and these reviews do not meet that threshold.
 * However, I am more inclined to consider discussion in a book to be a better indicator of notability than magazine/press reviews. So the book by Gary Hill is important to consider. I don't have access to this book. What I was able to do was view page 52 using Amazon's look inside feature, and also search the book and view the index to show that this page (and possibly some of page 53) are the totality of its coverage of the album. So I read the page, and found that the section is actually talking about the band. It does, however, briefly mention the album, because of what the author sees as Lovecraft inspired elements in it. So a book about Lovecraft inspired music talks about this band and says this album is pertinent. Possibly pertinent... except then I saw that the book is self published. Note that the publisher is Lulu.com, which Wikipedia does not accept as a WP:RS.
 * So what we are left with is a few ephemeral reviews, some of which actually tell us that the album was not well received, thus explaining why there is not more significant coverage, and a self published work by a Lovecraft fan. This is a clear fail of WP:NALBUMS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also from WP:NALBUMS: Yep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't appreciate that about the Hill book (though saying that, it is written by a known journalist (wrote for AllMusic) and proofread). However, I don't follow your logic. As @QuietHere said, just because a source is negative of something, it should not be disgarded. Any significant coverage in independent reliable sources is enough for WP:GNG. NALBUMS states that it is not the baseline, that would be GNG.
 * I also don't see what you mean by It is indeed interesting, because if the existence of a review of an album, when the album is released, and where it is an album of a notable band, were sufficient to establish notability...: it is not simply the existence of a review. From the sources in the article and those I have provided, there are five reviews in all, not just one? In addition to that, nobody was claiming that there was any inherited notability. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * . Your summary of my position seemed to miss my "thus". . My argument is simple. The paucity of reviews, and lack of sustained coverage is why this fails WP:NALBUMS. You think five is a lot, but it is not. It would be more telling if these five were across a long period, and not just reviews of a new album by a notable band. That would go some way to demonstrating that the coverage is sustained, and you might be tempted to think that the article dates perhaps show this. But take a closer look of these sources. For instance, this one has a date of 2010, allegedly 9 years after release. But that is clearly not the copy date, because the review begins with Die eindrucksvolle und verzaubernde Rückkehr einer der stilprägendsten Bands metallischer Epik. - That is talking about the return of this influential band. It strongly implies it was written when the album was new, otherwise the phrasing makes no sense. This one is also clearly written in 2001, speaking about how good 2001 is (in the sense of currently is). Allmusic and metal.de are undated but again appear to be contemporary to the release. For instance metal.de has “Atlantis Rising” ist ein ordentliches Comebackalbum, das vor allem Zeit braucht, um sich richtig zu entfalten. which is “Atlantis Rising” is a decent comeback album that needs time to really unfold/develop. (enfalten being the idea of development over time, the gradual revealing of something). So that was clearly written when it was new too. What about the last one? . That is marked as 2008, but again, reading it, I suspect strongly it was written closer to the original release. These are music site reviews (some of them niche) about a new album by a notable band. They do not demonstrate independent notability, and indeed they make clear that the reviews are given because this is a comeback album of a notable band. They do not demonstrate the coverage is sustained.
 * My point about inherited notability, once again, is this: all albums of notable bands will garner some reviews (not just one review, but a few) on release of the album, because the band is notable, but WP:NALBUMS is clear that notability of the album is not inherited, and that to be a notable album, there must be more than the ephemeral coverage that all such albums receive on release. It is necessary to show that the notability is sustained over a period, beyond the initial release.
 * As to the self published book: well being self published, whoever wrote it, no one has reviewed it, fact checked it nor, as far as we know, edited it. It cannot be used as a reference nor as a demonstration of notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete if they albums aren't notable, neither is the band and vice versa. I can't find any critical reviews either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is about all there is, from a French magazine page 64. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you meaning that including the references I found or with out them? Thanks for finding more information anyway. <span style="font-family: Opensans, sans-serif;">Schminnte (talk • contribs) 06:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on what I couldn't find and the information you provided. Oaktree b (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.