Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Orlando (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 redirect to Adrenaline Mob.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 03:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Mike Orlando
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Converted to a redirect per an AfD discussion only a few weeks ago, but recreated with new sources. The new sources, however, seem to be trivial coverage and press releases, and don't improve the claim to meeting WP:GNG. From my assessment, the strongest sources were already present in the prior version of the article, so restore redirect seems appropriate. signed,Rosguill talk 16:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. signed,Rosguill talk 16:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Policy Comment - This musician's article is part of a recent hubbub surrounding the notability of the band Stereo Satellite which itself resulted in two preposterously irritating AfDs in which many people posted passionate walls of text and not a dang thing was resolved in the end. The problem is the "musician is notable if in more than one notable band" and "band is notable if it has more than two notable musicians" guidelines; and the desire in some quarters to preserve text via redirects instead of deleting it, which in turn causes trouble when there's a dispute about where to redirect to. My own pleas for a higher discussion of all the contradictory policies that caused this mess has also gone nowhere. Good luck everyone; see the two AfDs for Stereo Satellite (first // second) and you will have little difficulty predicting how this new one on Mike Orlando will turn out. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 16:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A good chunk of people voted keep because they thought the sources (even if they may have been from a similar time period) proved notability. Very few only argued on the point that "two notable band members mean band is notable" (which I agree is a dumb clause). Why? I Ask (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case though, no consensus following the prior discussion would mean that the redirect stands. signed,Rosguill talk 18:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect - as per nom. Not enough in-depth coverage for a standalone article. Onel 5969  TT me 17:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: None of these sources are press releases and are articles by fairly reputable heavy metal music magazines. Redirecting to his "main gig" also doesn't help because he's been in other acts that have garnered coveraged, and some of those acts (like Her Chariot Awaits after this AfD discussion) redirect to him. There's not really a reason to redirect when there's information here that would not be suitable for Adrenaline Mob. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While the publications also publish more reliable, significant information, coverage like this and this are textbook press releases. No bylines, list of release dates and artist biographies, but zero independent analysis of the material released. Find me an article that actually provides an analysis of Orlando's contribution to a work and I'll reconsider my perspective. signed,Rosguill talk 18:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything that says there must be an analysis of an artist's work to confer notability. Just that there needs to be coverage by reliable sources. Brave Words meets that criteria. And having no byline is just how Blabbermouth.net operates. Not hardly any articles do. It's always attributed to the website. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect. The behavior here is questionable to say the least. Restoring an article that AfD closed with redirect less than a month later without any discussion (e.g. WP:DRV) seems wrong, especially when combined with pushing people to make a new AfD if they disagree, even if you think the previous one was "weak consensus" (it wasn't a soft delete). Adding sources doesn't change why the article was deleted (notability is based on all sources that can be found, not just ones present in the article). I feel a bit like even commenting on this sets a bad precedent—any editor can recreate an article they liked and demand it be reopened at AfD, so long as the previous AfD had few participants, which—let's be honest—most do. This should have been done with WP:DRV.But that's not an AfD argument; there are other places that kind of thing can be hashed out. I guess let's look at the sources. Rosguill's concern that the articles read like press releases has nothing to do with source reliability, but source independence, which is also part of WP:GNG: For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent and WP:MUSICBIO: Except for...any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves. Here's a source assess table summarizing the sources in the article (obviously, this is just my assessment, and may differ from others).


 * I looked around for additional sources as well, but didn't find anything worth adding. Honestly I think this is a notability edge case. The sources covering him are mostly doing so in a very limited manner. The press-release like articles seem to be Blabbermouth's journalistic style, but at the same time newswire coverage that he's got an album coming out certainly is a bit different from, say, a review of that album in terms of how well it establishes that there's independent coverage of the artist. If he's a notable artist, it surprises me that there's not any reliable independent reviews of his solo work—no guideline requires that, of course, but usually when looking for musical artist coverage reviews are the first thing that comes up. And while it's again not a requirement, I'm not confident there's a good article that can be built out of this selection of sources. Ultimately there just aren't a lot of sources for a modern artist (per WP:NMUSIC: The number of reliable sources necessary to establish notability is different for songs from different eras. Reliable sources available (especially online) increases as one approaches the present day, though this is explicitly stated for songs, it seems reasonable to apply to artists as well). I think this isn't enough to convince me of notability for an artist working in the modern online era, and I'm inclined to support upholding the original AfD result of a redirect. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 14:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And what of the redirect that goes to him? It's unrelated to his work for Adrenaline Mob. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Most likely it should be deleted. A band that's not notable enough for an article but is fronted by a notable person might redirect to that person; if neither is notable there's no reason to keep a redirect that doesn't have a valid target around. At any rate, the presence of redirects into the page isn't an argument for keeping it if the subject isn't notable. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 06:21, 5 November 2022 (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.