Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omega Diatribe


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Omega Diatribe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The band's only album was released in its own studio, so it doesn't seem to pass criterion #5 from WP:BAND. There are a lot of links that allegedly support the content of the article in a rather unidentified way, but it's not clear which statement is supported by which source, or which of these references make the band notable. Many of these are a passing mention, others are not reliable sources, some I can't even access because of content filters (which says a lot about them). In short, the only claim to notability is WP:GNG, and it's unclear which sources account for notability and how. - Andrei (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  00:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  00:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Some link has been added to the article of the indenpendent labels who released the band's albums. - Errorofmind (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * La Bam Prod.
 * Independent Ear Records

They also have an album review in the Hungarian offline Metal Hammer magazine (which is an evidence that the band counts and they are notable): * Omega Diatribe album review - Errorofmind (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:36, 30 June 2015 (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.