Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katafalk (2nd 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. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Nominated for deletion in 2006 and kept because of concert activity. While it may be true, it doesn't seem to push them over the WP:BAND barrier, and the records are issued on a rather minor indie label. Geschichte (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Although, I have a question to you all who are looking at this AfD. I also started an AfD on huwiki because this band is not notable for WP. A user there (named Dodi123) cited these sites as sources, asking "Which one of these are unreliable or a blog?" Well, in my opinion, all of them are, with the exception of Metal.de. I know there is a WP:ALBUMAVOID list here on enwiki which is useful - but this list is absent on huwiki, so that makes it tough to decide whether these sites are reliable or not. I know, on WP:ALBUMAVOID, none of these sites are listed either on the reliable or unreliable list which makes the decision tough as well. Another user on huwiki, named Teemeah, said that most of these sites (like Masterful Magazine and Metal Bite) started out as print magazines, then they went online. That sounds promising. But I am still not convinced of the reliability of any of these sites (again, with the exception of Metal.de, which I know is not on the reliable or unreliable list either - but some of the users here agreed with me about its reliability). So, with all this being said, what do you think about these sites? Can any of these being used as reliable sources?
 * Delete The article is unsourced. There does seem to be some coverage on the band: this article from a non-reliable website is a not significant coverage. This interview from a Wordpress blog, another interview from a different blog. Here's a profile in a Metal archive website. All in all, none of this reliable and does not meet WP:GNG. There is no evidence of them meeting WP:BAND either. Modussiccandi (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per Modussiccandi. No evidence of notability. This is the only reliable source I have found, the rest of the results are the standard junk like databases, streaming links, youtube videos, lots and lots of retail sites, lyrics sites and blogs. Also, the fact that it was kept at the first AfD because of "concert activity" shows how different the standards were back then. Thank God they have improved by now.


 * Metal Bite
 * Masterful Magazine
 * Brutalism.com
 * Carnage Death Metal
 * Darkside.ru
 * Lords of Metal Archive
 * Metal.de Interview
 * VM Underground
 * Pop Archief Groningen
 * Metal Rules

Thank you for your answer. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks you,, for unearthing all these websites. My impression is this: I agree with you that they all look unreliable and their coverage does not suggest a high degree of professionalism. Now, the fact that some of them may have started as print journals does not automatically change that. The Sun is being published in print to this day and so are many similar tabloids and niche magazines. This does not make them reliable. So, to summarise, I don't think these are reliable. There is another problem I find with many of the pieces from the above list. A number of them are interviews, some seem like self-published profiles. Both does not demonstrate independence of the subject. So even if we were to accept these sources as reliable, there is still doubt as to their independence. All in all, accepting such sources as reliable opens the door to a lot of niche content being deemed notable. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. I was right about these sites not being reliable. I know about The Sun's unreliability, despite it being a major tabloid. But tabloids are generally considered unreliable, I think. Thank you again for confirming the unreliability of these sites. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's turn the question around. What exactly makes for example metalbite or masterful unreliable? They review music in a specific genre, and publish it, and they don't get paid for it (read the FAQ), so they are independent reviews and they choose what to review, they don't write about everything. Also: " Usually we interview bands that we find are worthy of coverage. Typically, we don't do interview “per request”, as this would be unfair and problematic". This pretty much sounds like a magazine that has a dedicated editorial team that filters content. Like any decent magazine out there. Just because it's a niche audience and editors here haven't heard of the magazine, doesn't automatically mean it's unreliable. Teemeah 편지 (letter)  13:16, 18 October 2020 (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.