Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannabis corpse


 * 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   speedy keep. Nominator withdrew when refs were found  DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Cannabis corpse

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of WP:Notability. Fails WP:BAND. Polyamorph (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WithdrawAs nominator, I withdraw this AfD, another user has demonstrated sufficient notability and is willing to source the article appropriately. I'll leave the closure of the AfD to a neutral user. Polyamorph (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:BAND per nominator. --Noleander (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, this does in fact pass WP:BAND. See my response below. Brian Reading (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete - I helped make this article with a working version that another user made. I believe the band is certainly notable enough to keep this article, and I am wondering what I need to add to pass the notability requirements. They have toured the world twice now and completed at least 3 headlining U.S. tours. I can provide links about those tours. In addition, at least two of the band members are in independently notable bands - Municipal Waste and Battlemaster. Although a page for Battlemaster has not been made yet, I believe it would pass the notability requirements. -- Zppdppd (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:GNG and supply some sources that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources. The article must also satisfy the criteria in WP:BAND, I see no evidence that it does but feel free to prove me wrong and provide sources.Polyamorph (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This band does not fail WP:BAND, and is notable in its own right for the following reasons:
 * Cannabis Corpse Has been the subject of many articles published by sources including Blabbermouth.net, Metal Hammer magazine, and Decibel magazine which are all reliable independent sources (See here, here, and here for examples if you're interested).
 * The band has appeared in the notable film In the Loop.
 * One of the members is Philip Hall, who is also a member of the band Municipal Waste. That band has been signed to a major label (Earache Records), and is considered to be a prominent band from its area (Richmond, Virginia).
 * The band has toured with other major bands including Hate Eternal, Vital Remains, and Origin.
 * I am aware that some of the criteria I listed are not primary reasons for inclusion, but also provide some secondary merit. The primary key here is that this band does in fact pass WP:BAND. --Brian Reading (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article itself doesn't give any indication of notability or that the band satisifes WP:BAND, but if you want to edit the article to add some of the references that you've found to prove how it does satisfy that criteria then great. Polyamorph (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I will be adding these references soon. In the meantime, it would be inappropriate to still be advocating a deletion.  The article's content on Wikipedia is not the measure for whether a band passes WP:BAND.  Honestly, the only way I think you can say this doesn't pass WP:BAND at this point is if you're trying to claim that those are not reliable sources, but you will have a difficult time with that.  I am definitely surprised that you are taking this stance. --Brian Reading (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources are only rather trivial mentions of the band. There's nothing that suggests to me that they are really anything significant. But as I said before I'm happy to be proven wrong. Out of the 12 criteria on WP:BAND, how many (and which ones) would you say the band satisfies? And if you can provide sources that specifically prove that they meet those criteria then I will withdraw the nomination. But as of now I don't see it, sorry. Polyamorph (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly disagree. These sources are not simply trivial mentions of the band.  Did you not read the Decibal article I presented? What about this one from Blabbermouth.net? Here's another from the June 2011 issue of Thrasher magazine. Under which criterion does this subject meet WP:BAND? While other criteria could be argued, the first one is definitely met: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." This is sufficient for inclusion. --Brian Reading (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll withdraw the nomination (once I work out how to do that), I read the decibal article but being an interview it's almost a primary source? But being in the film I guess makes them notable (I did miss that point, sorry), although they weren't in the trailer, plenty of people have minor roles in films but it doesn't necessarily make them notable. It would be nice if they have evidence of notability via record sales, Mainstream media reports, awards, etc, i.e. all the usual things "big" bands have. But I'm convinced that you can provide some sources and are willing to improve the article so I'll give the article the benefit of the doubt. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would consider Thrasher magazine to be part of the "mainstream media", as they are part of the BNQT Media Group which is a subsidiary of Gannett Company, but I think this is a subjective term anyway. I do understand your concern about the fact that some of the sources are interviews, but I believe it is the community consensus to treat this as an independent source as long as it is being conducted by a reliable source.  As I understand it, the spirit of keeping some interviews out is to conform with not using sources similar to press releases.  These interviews are not similar to press releases, and are conducted by industry journalists associated with reliable sources, so I don't think we'll have that specific problem here.  As for withdrawing the nomination, I think your statement there is sufficient.  Usually, the admin closing this discussion will take that into heavy consideration when deciding the article's deletion.  I will definitely follow through with improving this article as much as I can, and I commend your objectivity in this.  People like you exemplify a genuine desire to improve the Wikipedia project, and not some sort of stubborn agenda.  Thanks. --Brian Reading (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2011 (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.