Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autumn Tears


 * 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   keep. There seems to be ample evidence that sources are readily available from multiple places. No overwhelming reason (other than sourcing) given to delete. Keeper |  76  05:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC). I meant to add, there doesn't necessarily need to be three articles. The two album articles could (should?) be combined with the artist article to make one, more complete, and better sourced article. Two cents. For now, I'm leaving them. Keeper |  76  05:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Autumn Tears

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:MUSIC; the band broke up without ever doing anything notable. Also proposing deletion of two related album articles. THF (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * Keep "without ever doing anything notable" - is highly subjective opinion. I think nominator should try to use Google first, if he cannot judge personally. Nomination contradicts WP:MUSIC "For composers and performers outside mass media traditions":
 * Reviews
 * "deserves to become a classic of the genre"
 * "makes pretty unique sounding"
 * quality representation of this niche of the genre
 * sublime is a very appropriate adjective for most of the music on this album
 * more review
 * more review
 * more review
 * more review
 * more review
 * popularity last.fm online Radio - 380,370 plays; 23,483 listeners --Ilya K (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  00:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ignoring the fact the nomination comes across as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, here are a few more reviews or mentions to help it pass WP:MUSIC,, . Merge the 2 albums into the main article. However there are more than enough sources out there for The Hallowing album to have it's own article.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 03:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  02:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, would appear to meet WP:MUSIC through secondary coverage. Keep in mind that as a band in a niche genre, you may have to look a bit harder to find references than you would with the latest radio rock band, but they seem to be there.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)>
 * Delete notability requires reliable sources, i doubt a single one of those passes as a reliable source. Blogs, self published fanzines and websites are simply not acceptable sources. Fame, popularity and genre have no relevance to notability, every subject needs to pass the same criteria. I cannot find anything in rolling stone nor allmusic. --neon white talk 05:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all: no significant independent 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Chronicles of Chaos and Blabbermouth.net are reliable sources and have been used as such on printed books here and here. Both have multiple articles on Autumn Tears: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. One of these sites provide interviews and album reviews while the other provide news coverage. In both cases, their focus are on heavy metal music but despite this focus, they nonetheless feature multiple articles on this non-metal band. A third reliable source Rockdetector provide a biography for the band here. --Bardin (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * i dispute that any of those is conclusively a verifiable source. Both Blabbermouth and rockdetector's reliability has been questioned. --neon white talk 20:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.