Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemhain (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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Nemhain (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Has reviews, but in less well-known publications and not enough to meet WP:GNG. It has one member who was also in a notablw band, but apart from that doesn't meet WP:NBAND. Boleyn (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I found several reliable sources like Blabbermouth, Brave Words, Metal Storm and Laut.de. But aside from these, the rest of the results are the unreliable databases, streaming service links, social media pages, retail sites and namechecks. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment again -
 * Brave Words
 * Blabbermouth
 * Metal Storm
 * Laut.de Biographie
 * Delete. Blogs do not count for notability. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep they are not blogs but are in fact reliable sources that show that the band does pass WP:GNG particularly with the references to offline sources such as The Virgin Encyclopedia of Rock (assuming WP:AGF), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D My Son  07:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus so far, it really appears to hinge on whether the sources qualify for WP:GNG.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments: I do not see the sources as a tipping point to WP:GNG. However, a more pressing problem, that has existed since 2009, is that the sourcing and notability were questioned with tags and never addressed. Assuming we assume all good faith on the off-line sourcing, it did not solve the issues of potential and possible original research, that would be a direct result of a lack of proper sourcing and inline citations. I also "assume" that approximately 29 unsourced paragraphs might be a tad too many for a BLP related article. I deleted all the unsourced material leaving an actual stub. Now we can make judgement calls on notability without being in violation of multiple WP:policies and guidelines. --  Otr500 (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: I don't see that the sources presented meet the level the GNG and NBAND requires.   Ravenswing     07:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Due to failing WP:GNG and WP:NBAND since 99% of the references are personal blogs or primary sources and there isn't the multiple reliable in-depth reviews of their music to warrant an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:34, 25 July 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.