Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Metal (Possessed demo) (3rd nomination)


 * 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. &mdash; Scientizzle 05:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Death Metal (Possessed demo)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable demo. Fails WP:MUSIC. SummerPhD (talk) 03:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons listed at AfD #2, which ended in delete. For something as influential as this is supposed to be, it seems strange that it is apparently impossible to source anything about it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  05:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No coverage, no go. I am believed to be the source of death metal too. Not a speedy? Rehevkor ✉  15:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment See also Articles for deletion/Reign of Terror (demo) for another demo by same band. DMacks (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * about the above... The page linked by DMacks above is about an album by an entirely different band. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 19:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Information - I'm bored with the whole question of whether demos are notable. But for this particular debate, the article's claim of influence is legitimate, as Possessed is indeed widely acknowledged in the field as one of the founders of the notable genre of death metal. That is a matter of fairly well-supported discussion in the book Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal, for example. Add to this the mistaken link by DMacks above, and it's evident that even though specialized knowledge is not always necessary for an AfD debate, you shouldn't declare something illegitimate just because you've never heard of it. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 19:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - As noted in the other discussion, DMacks mistake with the link comes shortly after blocking a sock who was trying to "protect" the articles by repeatedly removing the AfD note and such. As also discussed, no specialized knowledge of anything is needed to note that the article did not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Where you came up with the idea that it was up for deletion because some have never heard of it is immaterial. "Widely aknowledge in the field" is meaningless unless and until we have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While claiming that I misread the comments of others, you misread mine too. DMacks said, "for another demo by same band" which is just plain incorrect and I pointed it out as such. Also I was not voting so you don't have to tell me what's immaterial. That book I linked is a possible reliable and verifiable source if I was voting. And it is relevant to bring up the "because you've never heard of it" critique, at least to Rehevkor in the second vote above, who passed off a flip comment that has nothing to do with sources. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 20:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * DMacks was not taking part in the debate, he was only giving a courtesy notification, does that require him to be an expert? I did enough of a search (and found no significant coverage) to support my "flip" comment. What I have seen, via my own search and info brought up at the past AfDs is just passing trivial and references to the album; very few details on it's development. Even if it is the source of "death metal" (which is debatable), I don't see enough information to develop it beyond a stub. Rehevkor ✉  20:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I was only coming in via vandal-tracking, and mis-read some link-names. However, we as editors are essentially commandanded not to trust each others' word about notability. Verifibility means says that claims of notability must be supported by independent reliable sources. DMacks (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - This should have been a speedy delete, no need for an AfD. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message!  20:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Having trudged through "Sound of the Beast..." (mentioned above), I cannot seem to find this album. I find a brief, passing mention that Possessed had a song called "Death Metal" (as an early use of the term), but nothing to provide any content for this article and its claims to significance. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeesh, move on. DMacks has been defended for a "courtesy notification" and good for him. I also gave a "courtesy notification" to note that his was incorrect. Do I get credit for courtesy? Oh who the hell cares. I have not voted in this debate, and I have not said that the demo in question is notable, so there is no need to (over-)react to my comments as if I did. I was simply offering more information that might be useful for anyone else who wants to participate in this debate, especially if someone comes along who happens to know a little more about the field. Those folks might not be so humorless and didactic. No further comment. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 15:34, 17 May 2010 (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.