Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gods of Chaos


 * 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 no consensus. Anyone can add some of the sources mentioned in the discussion to the article if they can be found. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 04:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Gods of Chaos

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet notability guidelines at WP:NALBUM. Discogs is not an acceptable source and the second citation is a passing mention. I was not able to find any other coverage in Google. Chrisfilip (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Chrisfilip (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Chrisfilip (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep or Redirect - Reviewed in Melody Maker, Chicago Sun-Times, Trouser Press, AllMusic; every other RS mention I found was brief. Most likely print coverage, but I'm not interested in digging for it... Caro7200 (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, where did you find out that this had been reviewed in Melody Maker? If it was reviewed there, it was probably reviewed in NME as well, as they were sister magazines with the same owners and would probably have been sent the same records to review each week. It doesn't look like there's much information online apart from the AllMusic coverage, but a redirect to the band would certainly be preferable than outright deletion, as there does look like there are reliable sources in print form that could be used in the future. Richard3120 (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It is the Feb 28, 1998, issue, page 44. I noticed it through ProQuest but am unable to read it. Caro7200 (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  03:29, 29 September 2021 (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.