Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katagory V


 * 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   Keep. The existence of an AMG page almost always points to notability; and there are enough additional sources now that I believe the band passes WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 19:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Katagory V

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article was deleted on April 23 for failing WP:Band. Subsequent speedy for recreation of deleted material was declined. The article is no different to the version that was speedy deleted. It fails to assert any notability. The band is signed to a minor label (not notable - article redirects to Lance King). None of their releases have pages (Present Day is linked to present day, as in today). Nouse4aname (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * very weak Delete. No assertion of notability, true. The band has been the subject of tangential mentions in major publications and major mentions in tangential publications. Fail WP:Band.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 20:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete fails wp:band. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article IS different to the version that was speedy deleted, as several references and viable sources were added in the second version in the attempt to establish notability. This is far more than most bands of lesser standings on wiki, which many have none at all and are still found notable. Be it a Minor or Major Lable could be an irrelevant argument being that in either case, a bands product is available in the same fashion through the same resources, just on a smaller scale. Nightmare Records is notable, however, the Wiki page does redirect to the lable owner Lance King, and could have been a possible merge from a previous Afd? The band should have a pass on WP:Band through Soundscan charts in the U.S., and Google search pulls up several media outlets of broadcasting. The album pages are still undergoing edits before being added. Pass WP:HMM.--Prog2112 (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.225.88 (talk)
 * Keep - I believe the band does assert notability, indeed. ≈  The Haunted Angel  00:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Exactly which of points 1-12 at WP:Band does this article satisfy. I can't see any...Nouse4aname (talk) 08:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It helps to read the articles discussion page first to know the articles intentions. There are a slew of bands and artists that fail WP:Bands, just check all the bands that are linked on the articles page. Thus why it falls under said WP:HMM project as notable. Rsdtc (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Agree with The Haunted Angel. Passes WP:HMM
 * Comment. These arguements don't make any sense...since when is HMM a criterion of notability. The article fails WP:Band. WP:HMM has nothing to do with notability of articles. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ResponseWP:BAND, like all guidelines, is descriptive of what usually happens, not rules for what must happen. See WP:Consensus can change and the sentence at the top of WP:BAND:"'Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion.'" Still, I need more info to change my mind from a delete.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 15:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that, what I don't understand is the mention of WP:HMM, which has nothing to do with deciding whether an article should be kept or not.Nouse4aname (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * * I am also a little concerned that this posting [] may constitute forum shopping...? Nouse4aname (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention WP:CANVASS ≈  The Haunted Angel  17:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * After reading back over that post, I feel a bit embarrassed. forum shopping was certainly not my intentions, but rather to get the opinions from others who also work on WP:HMM, whether or not the article falls within WP:HMM, as well as asses its workmanship and cleanliness in that particular forum, or possibly on the articles talk page... not here. I apologize for that. Prog2112 06:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if anything, those people will know better than I do. You are correct that they are not a notability criteria and that that was a bizzare thing to say. --CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 15:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - I saw this on the WP:METAL page and came to take a look and it seems like the band's definitely notable enough. They've played with a ton of notable acts and that in itself makes them pass notability requirements. As for there being no pages for their releases that's a small problem that can be solved quickly. Hell, I'll start those pages if no one else does. It only takes about ten minutes to start all of them. Seems to pass WP:BAND.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 17:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – Thank you for offering to tackle the album pages, which is very much appreciated! However, I was able to finally get them online; I didn’t want to post them until I knew all information was accurate. Also, I was able to clean up the article a bit more. Hopefully it was not all in vain...Prog2112 06:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Can't find any significant coverage in mainstream media. Stifle (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BAND. Peter Fleet (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly qualifies per criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC: multiple non-trivial mention in independent and reliable sources. Interviews here, here, here, here; album reviews here, here, here, here, here, here and plenty more. They have also received news coverage here and of course, on blabbermouth.net where they've been covered many times: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. Blabbermouth would not give a band so much news coverage if they are not notable. There is also a biography at All Music Guide that describes the band's debut album as creating a buzz. Article needs clean up, not deletion. --Bardin (talk) 06:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment From what I can see, I wouldn't call any of those above sources reliable or verifiable. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * can you please explaine why any of those would not be called reliable or verifiable? I should point out that WP:Music cites All Music Guide as a reliable or verifiable source, which has been noted on the articles refrence section. Prog2112 08:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Granted, AMG is reliable, but the others, which include websites such as hardrockhaven.net, metal-temple.com, metal-rules.com and metal-observer.com are hardly mainstream, reliable and verifiable media outlets, and thus coverage in only one such site (AMG) hardly constitutes "multiple non-trivial mention in...reliable sources". Nouse4aname (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources do not have to be mainstream to be reliable. Just as obscure, heavy-going books are acceptable sources for history articles, decent ezines are acceptable sources for heavy metal articles. On top of that, Blabbermouth is definitely reliable. J Milburn (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2008 (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.