Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minas Morgul (album)


 * 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Minas Morgul (album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Of the sources I can find, the sputnikmusic review is clearly tagged as "user review", only staff and emiritus reviews from that website are RS per WP:MUSICRS. metal-archives.com is not an RS per WP:ALBUMAVOID. For the Metal Storm entry, WP:MUSICRS states "Only staff review from 2009 onward are usable, don't use guest reviews recognizable by a tag, which fail WP:USERG", and the review on that page for this album is from 2007, so not useable. After that, you get into myspace, bandcamp, etc. Taking this here instead of a bold redirect to the band page because the I don't speak the relevant language for Austria, where the album was originally released. Honestly, I think the only reason this page exists is that it is Middle-earth related, apparently in the past, anything tangentially related to LOTR got a free pass (see Articles for deletion/The Lord of the Rings (pinball) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gollum: How We Made Movie Magic). Hog Farm (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I know nothing of this band, but the German Wikipedia article de:Minas Morgul (Album) lists 16 sources, 5 of them properly archived on Archive.org in the German Wikipedia article, and of the rest at least this interview is in fact available. The band could easily be notable. Of the 5 archived refs, MetalInfo gives it 3/5, a full review.
 * Of the unarchived refs in the German article, MedienKonverter offers a detailed review of the album and gives it 5/5.
 * Metal.de reviews it favourably.
 * SputnikMusic reviews it (in English) as 4.5, claiming "it has earned classic status".
 * Metal Storm also guest-reviews it in English, awarding it "a perfect 10". I'm not sure if guest reviews confer notability but the overall impression is of an authentic and much-liked 'metal' album of the period.
 * Bloodchamber is a slightly shorter review; it awards 7.5 points (out of 10, I guess) and finds the music has "an almost meditative character". Each to their own. But given the multiple sources, this must be a Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Per Chiswick Chap. Its German article is notable. With the sources indicated above, the English article good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 03:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Summoning (band): having lots of sources doesn't mean the article is notable, if those sources all fail WP:RS. The two editors above appear to not have read WP:MUSICRS and the nominator stating correctly that the Sputnikmusic source is a user review, which has already been established by consensus is not reliable, and also that the Metal Storm review is invalid. The Tartarean Desire site is a webzine/blog, and moreover it's a primary source interview, so it doesn't convey any independent notability. So that's at least three of the sources above that aren't valid, and it's debatable whether any of the others are anything more than community blogs. In light of this, until it can be established whether any of the sources pass WP:RS, a redirect to the band's article seems to be the best option. Richard3120 (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 15:12, 27 May 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.