Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dethcentrik (4th 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 Based on the balance of policy-based arguments. The lack of reliable independent sources was not addressed by any of the Keep !votes, the majority of whose arguments amount to WP:ILIKEIT and/or WP:USEFUL. It should be noted that WP:BAND is meerely a guideline as to which bands are likely to fulfill the foundational criteria for inclusion, which are based on WP:V and WP:NPOV, and which lead directly to the general notability guideline. The wording of subject specific guidelines like WP:BAND is, regrettably, inclined to lead people to believe that x mentions in sources they consider reliable is an automatic entitlement to an article, which is not the case. The lack of policy-compliant sourcing is well documented below. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Dethcentrik
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Dethcentrik have not charted, not recelieved any major award, lacks significant sales (gold). Albums are not release by an "important indie label". They have not been on national rotation or the subject of any substantial broadcasts. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. They lack coverage in independent reliable sources. Article suffers from a major bombardment of sources but most are simply bad sources. There is only a few worth looking at
 * Metal Storm. The best of a bad lot but they are indiscrimiate. Send them your metal cd and they will review it.
 * Terrorizer and Decompression. Inclusion on a cover cd is not significant coverage.
 * Campos, Cristian (2011). Metal & Hardcore Graphics: Extreme Art from the Underworld. This is an art book that lacks any depth of coverage about Dethcentrik. Loft Publications specialise in house and gardens.

This is a bloated advert for a largely ignored vanity project. It's repeated reconstruction and maintenance on Wikipedia has been a massive exercise in bad faithed editing by a mostly single purpose account with an obvious conflict of interest. AfDs have repeatedly been !vote stacked by sock\meat puppets. A vexatious SPI was created. Article has repeatedly been bombarded with misrepresented unusable sources (eg 16, 18-29 are not playlists featuring Dethcentrik). BLP violations have been inserted to make the band look more controversial. Stop rewarding bad faithed editing and get rid of this tripe. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's fair to Cry BLP over a non-biographical article.-BusyWikipedian (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article in question is of no importance whatsoever, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" - Metal lunchbox (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * DELETE: I'm afraid I must agree with nearly every one of the multivarious reasons stated above, but most importantly this article doesn't establish Notability, which is the preiminent guideline for considering whether or not the article should be included in Wikipedia, or immediately deleted. WP:BAND applies specifically to this article, but it has no special magical phraseaology which will surprise anyone. Wikipedia is not Myspace. The band has not made any significant impact on the world and despite the incredible effort put in to stacking sources, a close look should be taken at the citations before any judgement is made. It is clear that the subject has not actually been the subject of repeated independent coverage in reliable third-party reporting. Much of the sources cited offer completely trivial mention of the group, or include little more than a track listing. Most are not edited, many are instead user-submitted and therefore are not reliable. Some of the copious links in citations lead to no mention of the subject at all, such as the one labeled '"Dethcentrik Songs". Billboard.' It is too bad that we keep having to revisit this. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete- No significant coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:BAND. Jbh (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: In regards to Terrorizer and Decompression, read the cited pages, it's not just inclusion on a compilation. Both users wanting deletion are failing to mention multiple sources, including these and other reviews: http://www.rockfreaks.net/albums/4612; http://ventsmagazine.com/the-fourth-reich-by-dethcentrik/; http://www.side-line.com/reviews_comments.php?id=49349_0_17_0_C; http://oliverarditi.com/2013/09/04/various-artists-album-roundup-024/ Also "Send them your metal cd and they will review it." Even if that's so, it has no affect on an artist's notability, see WP:MUSIC. As far as heavy metal and industrial are concerned, much coverage is online. In fact, many of industrial's most important artists are covered online most if not all of the time, and many of the genre's most popular publications are exclusively online. Not to mention, this band has released through the IODA. Closing administrator, please be on the lookout for (intentional?) omission of facts and blind agreement in deletion arguments--BusyWikipedian (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * IODA was basically self-publishing, that is irrelevant to the discussion. The blogs you mention aren't reliable sources. That they are published online is not a problem at all. The reason for these standards is for the sake of verifiabilty. Anyone can pubish a blog with any number of unverifiable claims. Hiddencodes.com gets over 3 million hits a month. They claim that Obama is actually a reptile. I invite anyone not familiar already to look at the totality and use some common sense, you might also ask yourself if sources like the side-line review are really reliable sources when they don't list an author and offer no information about themselves on the website. oliverarditi.com, could not more clearly be a personal blog. Also I'll remind you that "Intentional? omission" is pretty close to an accusation. It isn't really one, but try to stay on the right side of WP:AGF. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * By that same logic, every online publication is as reliable as Hiddencodes.com. You're implying every online publication is a blog, and every blog is unreliable. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:UGC is useful here, "... self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Furthermore, opinion peices, such as reviews are not generally acceptable as sources for facts, though that's how they are used in the article. Just read WP:Identifying reliable sources and you should then understand why none of those sources work to establish the notability of the subject. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Even so, that still avoids admitting that there's coverage in Decompression and Terrorizer-BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

- Metal lunchbox (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Inclusion in a free promo compilation cd and a line in the accompanying track list in the magazine does not come close to qualifying as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * KEEP: I was reading this discussion and felt compelled to add my two thoughts, partly because I'd never read a debate on deleting articles before. Though, this reads more like a battle of wits, law a court case, then a real debate of Dethcentrink. It seems to me that while some of the links for Dethcentrik might be lists or mentions in compilations, one must also remember that not every band gets on compilations, nor repeated compilations, particularly with a reputation and musical style as extreme as Dethcentrik. For those of you who may have curiously youtube'd the group you may agree Dethcentrik is on the far fringe of industrial and for many reviews, if you actually clicked on the sources cited, the unlistenable end of industrial. It's more likely than not, from my ear's opinion, that a band like this wouldn't get on a compilation, let alone wouldn't get any mentions anywhere but be quickly forgotten. A band like this should vanish after a short while, but Dethcentrik seems to be outlasting expectations and continuing to produce music. And, not just is Dethcentrik moving forward but also getting attention from respected folks in the industry like Chris Vrenna, whose resume includes Marilyn Manson and Nine Inch Nails. I doubt Vrenna is going to remix music for a band nobody cares about and has no musical value. This all says up-and-coming to my ears and thus not a reason for deletion, other than the fact that the band hasn't had a hit or gotten reviewed in a certain magazine. For the record, Rolling Stone is no longer considered the de facto source of great music reviews, making or breaking artists. While, the debate over blogs that review everything and anything seems to be ignoring the fact that a few of the blogs cited do not review everything but are selective, but somehow everyone is ignoring these because the idea was put out all the citations are either just lists or review everything. I guess nobody is actually clicking through all the links to verify this accusation. It would be one thing if Dethcentrik had a handful of links and those were a few years old, but there seems to be a growing list of links from an active band that is expanding its horizons. If Dethcentrik is deleted now, at one point could it come back to wikipedia? When it gets reviewed by a certain magazine, though its likely that will never happen. When it has a hit on the radio? Which will be never. When it doubles the number of compilations and citations and reviews. But, according to some folks here that doesn't mean anything. Though, one need only look at other pages on wiki to see bands with a lot less reviews and links and the lack of debate there. It's more the fact that Dethcentrik is fringe, out of the box, that the group doesn't seem welcomed here. I think it's also interesting to note that while this band has been up for deletion previously, there certainly must be a reason it didn't get deleted. There obviously is value in listing this band. Okay, that's my two thoughts times a large multiple. Good luck to whoever needs it. I won't be checking back on this so if you're up to argue with me or point out my personal faults or biases or lack of credentials (I'm a published history author in print), find me on another forum.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3F00:AB1:6025:83C7:F62D:8ED0 (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. Unfortunately none of what you bring up adresses the dramatic failure of the article to meet Wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards. It is indeed impressive just how much effort was put into making links to put on this article as source citations, but none of them are reliable sources and the unverifiable claims made don't establish notability. The boldest claim to notability in the article appears to be that the band had a video removed from YouTube once. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: duffbeerforme and Metal.lunchbox are always involved in the same debates from my experience and duffbeerforme frequently will canvass User:Metal.lunchbox to agree and add a deletion argument. --BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is normal for editors involved on the articles concerned to be involved in the deletion discussion. Letting me know about the discussion is not WP:Canvassing. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The only editing involving this article either of you have is attempting to delete it, and if duffbeerforme was concerned about a fair debate, he would have posted to other editors of this page, not just you and I-BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Does not matter to me. This article was on my list of things to consider for AfD and I know neither of those users. As for sources, please read WP:RS for what is considered a reliable source. Also please read WP:BAND for the type of coverage needed to be considered notable. This band does not meet those criteria. Can you show that they do? Jbh (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BAND says inclusion is a notable compilation, so inclusion of compilations from Decompression and Terrorizer, and inclusion in Electronic Saviors should be more than enough to satisfy criteria 10. Being written about in the publications Side-Line, Vents, Terrorizer, Decompression, and Brutal Resonance (amongst others) satisfies criteria 1. Angelspit, Dawn of Ashes, and Chris Vrenna's work for the band fit under criteria 6. And they meet criteria 7, they are the by far the most notable representatives of industrial from Colorado Springs, and are accepted in the international industrial scene. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As for reliable sources; Brutal Resonance, Decompression, Metal Storm, Side-Line, Vents, Terrorizer, and The Gauntlet (to name a few, again) are perfectly reliable sources, and are very authoritative within their subcultures -BusyWikipedian (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Angelspit, Dawn of Ashes, and Chris Vrenna aren't even mentioned in the article. Also your "work for" wouldn't match criterion 6 even if they were, since that clearly states that a band may be considered notable if it includes two or more notable musicians as members. Deth Centrik most certainly does not. The rest, we've already discussed. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Karl from Angelspit and Kristof from Dawn Of Ashes are on a Dethcentrik album, and Chris Vrenna helped with production for a compilation track. The rest has not been discussed. You simply avoid and dismiss anything that goes against your argument. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to address the spurious accusations made by BusyWikipedian. "duffbeerforme and Metal.lunchbox are always involved in the same debates from my experience". That is because BusyWikipedian's experience is EXTREMELY limited. He is primarily focused on the promotion of Dud Beverte and his various projects. The crossover between Metal Lunchbox at afd is limited to two articles. In addition to this afd there is Articles for deletion/Død Beverte, Articles for deletion/Død Beverte (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Dethcentrik (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Dethcentrik (3rd nomination). All fit in Busy's laser focus. The crossover between Metal.lunchbox and BusyWikipedian is exactly the same. Does that mean they are also colluding? The crossover between BusyWikipedian and myself is bigger, adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Saviors Volume 3: Remission (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Elctrikchair (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Elctrikchair (3rd nomination) to the list. Does that suggest a conspiracy between me and him? He also says I "frequently will canvass User:Metal.lunchbox" BusyWikipedian clearly has not reas WP:CANVAS. Not only is it not canvasing, it misrepresents my notifications. I have informed BusyWikipedian about more AfDs than Metal.Lunchbox. "if duffbeerforme was concerned about a fair debate, he would have posted to other editors of this page". What other editors. Other than passing and technical edits, there is no one else that has made any significant edits. This is a vanity page. These accusations are clearly baseless and are just trying to distract from the lack of notability of the subject at hand. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - please stop marking all of your edits here minor . Only edits which result in no substantial change in a page should be marked minor. Marking other edits as minor can be considered disruption. Thank you for your understanding. Jbh (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 09:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have trimmed some of the most unreliable sources and unverifiable claims from the article. It should be a little easier to judge the notability and the potential verifiability of the article now with out all the wikipuffery. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I've found Wikipedia to be useful resource for finding out more about bands I find out about, and I've read about this band in many of the online magazines I frequent (Side-Line, Vents, and Brutal Resonance namely, although reviews never affect my opinion of a band, I tend to look up bands I read about to hear them, or decide if I like them when I hear them). After hearing about them constantly around here, and on an online radio show recently, I decided to finally look more into this band, and I've got to say, this has to be one of the best resources to learn about them on. I understand the concerns about whether or not this band is worthy of keeping here since Wikipedia does have standards, but in terms of Colorado's industrial music scene, they're extremely important. They're one of the best known bands around here, and I do know they've gained recognition from places that usually only acknowledge the bigger bands in the genre period. They aren't mainstream, but they're an important part of the fabric of modern industrial music, and the coverage they get is with the biggest of the big in terms of the genre. I did see a book mentioned in this discussion, and I'm wondering why that's not still on the list of resources, because that's big. There's a copy of that book at a college library in town, and the bands I saw in that book were huge Slayer, Dimmu Borgir, Korn, etc. There are many articles about this band in big publications, so I don't see how one can't find the articles themselves and see that this band is noteworthy within the genre's scene, and I don't want to see this article go away as I've noticed a few others, of perfectly notable bands and albums have. People here need to understand that to fans of industrial, this is one of the biggest artists right now, and there are many other artists, albums, and people in the scene who aren't here but should be -128.198.17.62 (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This anonymous sockpuppet/meatpuppet asserts that they are "one of the biggest artists right now", that's bold. WP:AGF exists, but we aren't supposed to pretend to be idiots. Said "book" has no significant coverage of the subject of the article, just an album cover. The "magazines" mentioned are even less significant. Vents isn't the vents magazine you get when you google "Vents Magazine" but rather a non-notable podcast that may or may not even mention the band. I didn't feel like listening to the whole thing to find out. The article doesn't cite the other two, because they are not reliable sources, not by a long shot. Other than that the above sockpuppet/meatpuppet only cites his/her personal opinion. This is another pitiful attempt to cover up for utter lack of notability. I hope that the proper admin will not take anything for granted in his/her appraisal of this discussion and the relevant article. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I may not have taken the time to properly word what I wanted to say, but I don't appreciate being called an idiot over that. This from what I see is a debate, and anyone is supposedly welcome to chime in, and from what I see here this debate has to do with opinions and whether or not the band has enough press to stay. I mentioned the magazines I did because they have written about the band. Vents has a review of the band (http://ventsmagazine.com/the-fourth-reich-by-dethcentrik/) and an interview (http://ventsmagazine.com/dod-beverte/) with the frontman (albeit, it's about all of his projects). That's two articles, and it is the site you find when you Google "Vents magazine." I haven't heard the podcast myself, so I don't know if they played a track by the band or actually talked about them. I figured it would be valuable to mention myself that this band is widely accepted as an important group in industrial music. I found this a useful resource to find more about this band, and they're important enough that the article needs to stay, and they aren't unknown. I certainly won't bother doing one of these again if it just gets you insulted by the opposing side of the argument128.198.17.62 (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 128.198.17.62, it's nice of you to join this debate, and while I do agree with your points about where you've read about Dethcentrik being notable, you also bring up other points that we'd have to take your word on and it is your first time here. Metal lunchbox did not call you an idiot by the way, he just didn't think you had a very compelling argument and that it was suspicious that you don't have a history here at Wikipedia. Perhaps it's your first time seeing an article with an open deletion discussion, maybe you've seen articles disappear and now you know how it happens; maybe you have seen these debates before and thought you could finally chip in. Perhaps you should wait before joining one of these again. I see you mention a college library, if you're in college that means at some point you've likely had to use citations, and if you have then you know how Wikipedia works to an extent: we write articles with information that can be verified through sources. Those sources have to be reliable, just as they would in your papers. I've had to write papers, and I was told never to use Wikipedia as a resource. Ideally, we don't want Wikipedia to be that unreliable. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I was mistaken, the Vents citation was from the vents magazine that you get when you google it. There were so many unreliable citations that it's hard to remember all of them exactly. The Vents citations you provide were removed from the article (by me) because they aren't reliable sources, just like all the sources used in the article. A review, is an opinion piece, and generally can't be used to verify facts here on wikipedia. The second source is an interview with the subject of the article, so it's just what he says about himself, so cannot be used to verify claims either. This entire debate would not be necessary if someone would just read WP:RS for once. I'll repeat what another editor has said to you in the past, your idea of what constitutes a reliable third-party source and significant coverage are not compatible with the consensus here at wikipedia. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment If the page is kept or no consensus is reached no action is needed, but if the article is deleted go ahead and delete The Fourth Reich under A9 criteria and close the AfD debate.--BusyWikipedian (talk) 13:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - — BusyWikipedian (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. } Jbh (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Admin, please see my contibutions before simply agreeing with this. I do agree I haven't edited much outside the topic of music, but I don't feel that was the implication-BusyWikipedian (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, when I looked at your contributions all I saw were edits related to Død Beverte who is a member of Dethcentrik and Død Incarnate Records including the Deathcentric albums which are not even remotly near passing WP:NALBUM. I should have looked deeper. Striking SPA and will do so at the other AfDs related to Deathcentric. Jbh (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note - — 128.198.17.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Jbh (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The album articles for this band have all been placed at AfD. Jbh (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Since there is a lot of conversation and not a lot of policy citations here let me address how Deathcentrik stacks up against the criteria of WP:BAND.
 * Not the subject of multiple non-trivial works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.
 * Not had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
 * Not had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
 * Not received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country
 * Not as released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels.
 * Not contain two or more independently notable musicians...
 * Not become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city.
 * Not won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
 * Not won or placed in a major music competition.
 * Not performed music for a work of media that is notable
 * Not been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
 * Not been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.
 * If it can be shown how this band meets any of the above criteria I will happily change my vote to keep. Jbh (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I previously responded to you about these concerns earlier in the debate -BusyWikipedian (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see where you did. To try to make a concise area of discussion without all of the noise in the rest of this page please say what criteria it is you believe this band passes and how they pass it. It will aid in my understanding quite a bit. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest I was just feeling lazy and was hoping you had the energy to read through some of the malarkey to find it. This AfD has been going forever. Anyway, the cited album reviews are from notable sources: Side-Line, Brutal Resonance, Rockfreaks, Metal Storm (which, as a user pointed out recently is listed as a reliable source in WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES), and articles from Vents magazine and The Gauntlet (which, I do recall seeing articles from on Google news). They have been in numerous compilations (which criteria 10 counts) including a compilation of exclusive tracks released by Metropolis Records and two in printed, ISSN assigned magazines, amongst others. Criteria 6, when you factor in the musical genre, is met by the fact that Dawn Of Ashes, Angelspit, and Chris Vrenna have contributed to Dethcentrik. And they are the most prominent industrial band from Colorado Springs. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of all the sources you mentioned only one is RS per WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. I see nothing that indicates they are the most prominent industrial band in Colorado Springs they may well be the only one from Colorado Springs but that does not count. Criteria 6 is notable members not people who have played with them but actual members. The only way I see them passing is if they have songs on notable compilations ie ones that have or could have their own article. Are they on such a compilation? If so, which one? I know industrial is hard to find sources for. Thanks. Jbh (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * According to WP:GNG an article can in fact be cited for a Wikipedia article that isn't about the main topic of that article. Terrorizer and Decompression talk about the band (read the write ups), and WP:RS says that a source doesn't have to be listed specifically to be reliable, and you shouldn't always have to check Wikipedia and find that other sources are considered reliable. There also is not a minimum number of sources, and if a band is the only band in their genre in their city, they are still the most famous band in that genre from their city, they are still the most notable from that city. If you consider Terrorizer's sales alone, you realize that it's not only a notable compilation, but the write up constitutes coverage in a reliable source, Decompression would count for both as well. If you consider the compilation Electronic Saviors and its importance in the modern industrial music scene, it's definitely a notable compilation series. -BusyWikipedian (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is getting pretty loose on notability in my opinion. Yes you can cite sources in an article that are not specificly about the subject but they do not count for notability purposes. For the most part those are considered 'passing mention'. I can think of several 'most notable' bands if you define geography and genre narrowly enough. While there is no numeric minimum significant means more than one or two sources. My firm opinion is if you have to reach for notability then they are not notable. Based on the album closes maybe the community has a different view of this than I do. I consider significant coverage to be at least as high a bar as national charting, the types of awards given as examples etc. it is not a low bar. My bet is this closes NO CONSENSUS most AfDs with this much text do. Jbh (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The "write-up" is more like a mention. The song is included in the terrorizer promo cd that they bundle with one of their issues, and they have a kind of track listing on page 3 with a few words about the band. This is not in-depth coverage. And the promo compilation cd bundled with that particular issue isn't notable. It was never mentioned in any books, no one wrote a newspaper article about it and it has no significant impact on the world. Your idea of notability and reliable sources are both radically deviant from Wikipedia norms. RE: no consensus- That the author of the article objects to the deletion based on exaggerated claims is not a proper basis for "no consensus". Consensus is not unanimity - Metal lunchbox (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * PR and promotional material is specifically excluded from coverage counting towards notability. Jbh (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd consider "a few words" an underexaggeration. And if charting and awards is all that counted, there would be too many omitted notable artists, including Throbbing Gristle, Coil, and Psychic TV, three of the most important industrial bands. And yes, WP:GNG specifically states that articles in which the topic of the Wikipedia article are not the main subject of the article do count towards notability. And what makes a source reliable should be the criteria for a reliable source, not whether it has an article on Wikipedia or whether it is listed as a reliable source, the list itself even says that, and most sources dismissed in this debate meet WP:RS, but are being dismissed solely on the fact that they aren't on Wikipedia as an article or on the list. Third party sources with editorial oversight are being dismissed here without research, because they aren't all over Wikipedia. And the assertion that "that particular issue" of Terrorizer is not notable; Why only that issue? Because it includes Dethcentrik?-BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are twisting my words, it is the promo cd included in that particular issue that I claim is not particularly notable, based on the criteria set forth in WP:NALBUMS and other descriptions of what is generally considered "notable" on wikipedia. It is actually a few words, not paragraphs, that is not just my personal opinion. The coverage is not in-depth. Read WP:RS for god's sake! We aren't claiming that it has to be specifically listed as a reliable source by name on wikipedia. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Jbh, Metal.lunchbox, I have seen no reliable evidence (or any evidence for that matter) that Terrorizer's compilation series is a "promo cd." If that were considered a valid point, then all of Wikipedia would be based on anything a user decided to say -BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks to be a CD put out by a magazine to promote or showcase artists. It is not sold as an independent release but as part of buying the magazine. That is the very definition of promotional material. Jbh (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The results of two of the AfDs for Dethcentrik albums closed with a Keep. One Dethcentrik album related AfD remains --BusyWikipedian (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In case this is unclear, decisions to delete or not delete articles related to this one, should not have any significant impact on the decision to delete this article. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2015 (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.