Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgarten (band)


 * 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. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Morgarten (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable band. Some fringe coverage at metal sites. Fails WP:SIGCOV.  scope_creep Talk  20:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. The coverage is certainly abundant, much of it in German or Dutch. Some reviews of the first record include, , , , the second album , , , , , , , , , . While I tried to exclude blatant blogs there is certainly a big difference in quality among these, but being covered by Metal.de and RockHard.de goes a long way. Geschichte (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep the coverage shared above is enough to meet WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Nobody is listening to this band. They have 746 monthly listeners on Spotify makes them the equivalent of a pub band. There is no social media coverage and what coverage is there, is metal sites covering a heavy metal band. There is no mainstream coverage that you would expect if they were truly sucessfull. They have been playing since 2005 and they have NOT made a mainstream breakthough.    scope_creep Talk  14:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia's music guidelines are open to bands without mainstream success, specifically mentioning indie labels, and in conjunction with that, reviews written by indie publications as long as the publications are WP:RS and preferably WP:THREE. Also note that I only searched for reviews, and that there may or may not be coverage of other aspects of the band. Either way, it's important to be aware that what coverage there is will mainly be in the German and Dutch languages. Geschichte (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't mind German and Dutch, I translate them all the time, and they are equally valid in terms of quality as any another quality sources. The point I'm trying to make that in 16 years they have been in existance thy have had no mainstream success, which itself constitutes a level of failure, that for me, makes them non-notable. The coverage you have put up, reflect that failure. They never reached the front page, as far as I can see of the two metal sites as far as I can see. A lot of it, kind of routine coverage, new album stuff, touring, the sort of stuff. Its all very basic and routine. Its fine to say that the Wikipedia guidelines offer guidance on Indie, but there is a level that must be reached. That fact that nobody is listening and nobody is interacting/writing about them on social media, means that magazines are essentially supporting their existance. They are right at the bottom of the scale. That is the definition of non-notability.    scope_creep Talk  16:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2021 (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.