Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleed The Grey Sky Black


 * 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 Delete and redirect to Bella Morte. Avi 16:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Bleed The Grey Sky Black

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I see no reviews or references for the album. It is listed in the band's article already, but I do not think it needs a separate article. MsHyde 21:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: References for an album--reviews in any music publication, major or minor, might indicate that an album is notable. This album is barely even mentioned on blogs.-MsHyde 22:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have no interest in, and no knowledge of, the band but I can't see how this deserves deleting. I'm not sure precisely what you expect in the way of references for an album, things like Employment (album) seem to be surviving perfectly well without. It's on AMG which seems sufficient, and the notability guidelines for albums read: "Though this guideline is somewhat controversial, the general consensus on notability of albums is that if the musician or ensemble that made them is considered notable, then their albums have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." --YFB  ¿  22:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wish to debate notability policy, I suggest you do it at the village pump or at the Notability talk page. I see no grounds for deletion under the current guidelines. --YFB ¿  22:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is a guideline, not a policy. I see that WP:MUSIC is disputed. The page referring to notability of albums is historic. It says: "An album is notable if the album has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the artist or publisher of the album."-MsHyde 22:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Reviewed in ReGen magazine. I feel it would be inappropriate to delete an article on the basis of a disputed guideline, under the current version of which there are no grounds to delete. --YFB ¿  18:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ReGen Magazine appears to be a little known blog run as a hobby by a handful of people who are employed fulltime elsewhere. As I said, I do not think blog mentions meet "multiple, non-trivial" sources. I do not see a compelling reason for this album to be separated from the article about the band.-MsHyde 19:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume you are not disputing whether Bella Morte is a notable band. Including the album's information in the article would be messy and pointless - it's not as though there's a limit to the number of articles we can have. The information in the album article is verifiable and encyclopaedic. The current guideline for albums makes no mention of multiple non-trivial sources if the band is notable. I do not see a compelling reason for this album not to be separated from the article about the band. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. --YFB ¿  19:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I put an unreferenced tag on Bella Morte. I think they might be borderline notable, but their albums are definitely not notable as separate entities, and there is no reason to have articles about them.-MsHyde 19:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Addhoc 12:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no notability shown Fotografico 04:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above searches. Addhoc 12:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Bella Morte. No verifiable information found, inappropriate per Wikipedia not an indiscriminate collection of information. Other than the title, already mentioned in the Bella Morte article, there seems to be nothing verifiable that could be said here. WP:V and WP:N don't require third-party non-trivial coverage as a shrubbery, but because without it it's very difficult, if not impossible, to write an encyclopedia article otherwise. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:50, 11 February 2007 (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.