Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metallica: This Monster Lives


 * 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. North America1000 03:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Metallica: This Monster Lives

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is about a non-notable book, and has no sources. I tried to search for sources, and all of them I found were either trivial mentions, or just places to buy this book. In addition, the tone of the article is very poetic/idiomatic, which violates the Manual of Style. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 20:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 20:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 04:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. All I found were bookstore entries. I have also found an IndieWire article, but that's just a chapter of the book. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per the criteria at WP:NBOOK, which require at least non-trivial professional reviews. It's rather odd that this book escaped notice at a time when Metallica was heavily in the news, with a recent album and movie. It must have been poorly promoted, as it received no reliable reviews that I can find. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 04:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.    <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>

<ol> <li> The book notes: "Berlinger's account of the making of the movie is an invaluable accompaniment, despite its deadly earnest tone; we learn how hacked off both Megadeth's Dave Mustaine and therapist (sorry, 'performance enhancement coach') Phil Towle were with the results, as well as the shameful emotions of the film-makers themselves, hoping that 'something bad (but not too bad)' would happen to make the project interesting."</li> <li> The review notes: "This companion to the acclaimed Metallica documentary that Berlinger codirected with Bruce Sinofsky is burdened by the expectation that it should reveal even more about the band than the film did. In this sense, Berlinger doesn't deliver, wasting too many pages justifying his editing decisions and philosophizing on objectivity."</li> <li> The review notes: "In an absorbing narrative, Berlinger (with rock journalist Milner) describes just what it took--the myriad decisions and risks--to turn nearly 1,600 hours of footage into a story that delivers an emotional impact that is all the greater for being true. This book should be required reading for aspiring filmmakers because it reveals the huge difference between turning the cameras on a contrived situation that purports to be 'reality' and making a cinema verité or nonfiction film."</li> <li></li> <li> The article notes: "'Metallica' is derived from the unprecedented access granted by the band to Berlinger and his long-time production partner, Bruce Sinofsky. Tome will include exclusive photographs, some taken by Berlinger.'"</li> <li> The review notes: "But the book gradually takes on the momentum of a suspense novel, and triumphs because of the commitment and fearlessness of Metallica. More a book about filmmaking than about music, 'This Monster Lives' shows that tenacious reporting can still produce great narratives, even about the most mega of megaplatinum rock stars."</li> <li> The review notes: "Filmmaker Berlinger takes us even deeper into the inner sanctum he plumbed in the emotionally charged documentary Metallica: Some Kind of Monster. Here, we find out that Berlinger himself was on the emotional skids after making the horrific flop Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 and how Metallica's management and record label nearly short-circuited Monster."</li> <li> The review notes: "Feeling that the film didn't capture all the drama that he witnessed, Sinofsky has further delved into the subject in this book, a fascinating look at the logistics of making an album and the dysfunctional family that bands (and filmmaking partnerships) can become."</li> </ol>

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Metallica: This Monster Lives to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)</li></ul>


 * Notability (books) says: "A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria: <ol><li>The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.</li></ol>" Cunard (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To allow further consideration of the above sources.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Kudos to for finding those sources. <b style="font-family:monospace;font-variant:small-caps;border:0.5px solid #6d6f30;background:linear-gradient(#cdf4ae,#cbedf8);color:#6d6f30">Enjoyer of World</b> — Talk 01:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per - definitely passes WP:GNG. Less Unless (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cunard's sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept and feel free to check out the multiple sources that I added to the article as well now that I have improved it as I have added some that are listed above as well as others that I have found too. Davidgoodheart (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep There are many reviews. But it certainly needs improvements. I didn't learn much about the content of the book. Just circumstances in which it was written. Sources mentioned above should be incorporated in the article. Kudos for Cunard for providing all these sources circumventing a delete. werldwayd (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC) I have now added multiple sources to the article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep In it's current form, the article is an unsourced stub. I see there are sources which at least mention it, suggesting notability. If kept, it is in need of a rewrite. Dimadick (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC) I have now added multiple sources to the article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep One should not assume a subject is non-notable just because the article is unsourced or a stub. Many times when someone puts in some actual effort to find them sources tend to present themselves.★Trekker (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC) I have now added multiple sources to the article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above arguments for keeping. Lesliechin1 (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.