Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necrovation


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Necrovation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable band. A single ref from about.com doesn't meet reliable sourcing Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The article uses a reliable book as a source. Just because the article is minimal does not mean the band is non-notable. The obscurity of a topic should not be considered as lack of notoriety.--Malconfort (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ  21™  03:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep Weak delete - at the end of the day, the subject still needs to meet WP:GNG / WP:BAND and with the sources included at the moment, I don't think it does:


 * 1. While I can't read the summary of the band (only select pages are provided), an e-copy of most of that book is available here. I won't make a judgement about what might be included in the book but if it gives similar coverage to that given to other bands in the book then I would say that counts as "significant coverage" in a "reliable source". But we probably need to verify exactly what the book says about the subject.


 * 2. I'm 50-50 about metalmaniacs.com - it doesn't seem "obviously unreliable" as a source but it also wouldn't seem to have the same editorial rigour as NYTimes.com or something like that. I wouldn't be hanging my case on that one but it doesn't seem so bad that it should be removed.


 * 3. The one from about.com is pretty bad. It fairly obviously falls into the WP:USERG category and would be like using Wikipedia as a source. Should probably be removed as non-RS.


 * So my conclusion would be that we probably have 1 1/2 reliable sources, maybe two if we push the issue. That's not enough as far as I'm concerned. But my conclusion is "weak delete" for a reason - if we can find one or two more sources then I think the question would be beyond doubt. Do you have any others? Stalwart 111  (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/162655-mixturam-metallum/P2 --Malconfort (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not bad, though the band itself doesn't inherit notability from its work and that is, for all intents and purposes, a review of one of their albums, rather than significant coverage of the band itself. It would certainly be useful for verifying some of the content in the article, perhaps, but I'm not sure it necessarily contributes to WP:GNG all that much. Certainly heading in the right direction, though. Stalwart 111  (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per the Bazillion Points book and the popmatters piece. The idea that the latter does not constitute significant coverage of the subject is unconvincing on reading it (and generally that an album can be reviewed without its being significant coverage of the artist has been rejected in countless afds). There are also reviews at Blistering & Exclaim!  86.44.49.108 (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree that bands and their products get an exemption from WP:INHERIT (and so I'm lukewarm on the second source), the first of those two sources is (in my opinion) pretty good. In combination with the ones listed above, I think they allow the subject to meet the criteria at WP:GNG (though they would obviously need to be added to the article). Good work! I have changed my stated view above. Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2012 (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.