Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicidal angels


 * 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. With kudos to Phil. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Suicidal angels

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Previously deleted via CSD. Recreated. Renominated for CSD by a different editor. Contested. Series of mini-edit war CSD reverts. Nominating to get consensus Gaijin42 (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Creator also created Suicidal_Angels and requested that this article should be deleted with a typo. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence that WP:MUSIC is met, no WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Appears to be an attempt at notability by association. Obviously created by a member of the band per the username. CSD A7 seems legitimate given that there is no actual claim of importance. -- Kinu  t/c 20:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Unsourced self-promotion with no evidence of notability from independent sources, and very little likelyhood that suitable sourcing will ever be found. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and fully-protect from further editing. It's an brilliant example to preserve for posterity, from the excessive red-linking (almost sad and poignant optimism), promotional and un-encyclopedic tone, laughable references. So I'd prefer it moved to Userspace or Essayspace or wherever so it could be externally linked in the various Red link, Conflict of interest and WP:RS guides as an example of what NOT to do. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to recreation by another editor without WP:COI if notability can be shown. There is nothing to save here, and the encyclopedia is definitely worse for having it included in its current state. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. @LoveUxoxo - I love your style!  It's so bad that it is worth preserving! --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. It would help if people commenting here could address the question of notability by, for example, explaining whether the nearly 200 sources found by the Google News search linked above constitute significant coverage in independent reliable sources, rather than poke fun at the style of the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I just went through the lot. It's almost all concert announcements, album release info, and trivial concert reports from various European heavy metal blogs, plus a couple of same in some newspapers. Nothing here establishes notability. BUT there was one very short (two paragaphs) feature in the local Hamburg newspaper from two years ago that reports that the band won a contest against 1200 other bands and thus was invited to sign a contract with Nuclear Blast []. This sounds notable, BUT the newspaper goes on to report that this is "possibly the first step in a great musical career" and the expanded headline states that "something might come out of the Suicidal Angels" someday. So not notable yet. The lack of anything substantial in the two years since that report strongly indicates that they have not lived up to that promise... as of yet, that is. A single ambivalent two-paragraph feature in a local newpaper does little to establish notability, and the rest of the 200 Google hits combined doesn't add very much. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That is fair enough Phil Bridger, and yes the nominator and (and !voters) are expected to adhere to WP:BEFORE and perform due diligence as to notability. It does seem to me though that in obvious cases such as an article like this one, the WP:COI problems are such that a it is a valid argument (in my opinion) for deletion without prejudice to recreation by an editor without COI, and that is in the best interests of Wikipedia. There is nothing to salvage here, and the article would need to be started gain from scratch, suitable sourcing permitting. I'd expect most of us have too much on our plate already, although if someone wants to prove me wrong that would make me be happy. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * nominator, possibly changing vote So, while re-reading WP:BAND, the "win or place at a major competition" line popped out at me. This article claims to have done so by placing first in "blitz" and "Nuclear Blast". Both blue links from the article go to pages that do not appear to be music contests. (A band, and a label respectively) So. If 1) the winning of the contests can be verified. and 2) Those contests are determined to be "major", then I would change my vote to keep. Else still delete. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In which case, WP:BLP1E would apply, especially as the have done nothing notable before or since, and have received, as far as I can tell, no substantial coverage for it except on blogs and in one local newspaper. They appear to have been a flash in the pan. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hrm, If it can be verified, and it is a major competition, then I think they meet WP:BAND, and notability is not temporary. However it is probably moot as I don't think those conditions will end up being true. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It can certainly be verified, and it is major enough to be reported in the Hamburger Abendblatt, a major regional newspaper from outside this band's home country. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the band got only a two-paragraph article in a local paper that said that the award was a good start for the band and that the band may amount to something someday. That's a far cry from substantial coverage as far as WP:BAND is concerned. The contest is a talent competition run by Nuclear Blast to identify promising new talent, not to recognize major past accomplishments. WP:TOOSOON also applies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I take issue with your repeated assertion that the Hamburger Abendblatt is a local newspaper. It is a regional newspaper with a higher circulation than The Guardian, the San Francisco Chronicle or Rzeczpospolita. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have added references to the article confirming that this band flies through the general notability guideline, with coverage from all over Europe. I restricted myself to publications aimed at a general readership, because I don't know enough about heavy metal music to evaluate the reliability of the very many more specialist sources available. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but no cigar. All you added was a bunch of concert announcements, album release info, and trivial concert reports from various European heavy metal blogs, plus a couple of same in some newspapers. Nothing here even comes close to establishing notability under any policy, even if added all together. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which of the sources that I added were "various European heavy metal blogs"? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's go through the souces one by one:
 * 1) 3voor12: Dutch music blog. Trivial mention as one of five warm-up bands for a music festival.
 * 2) Athens 24: Local events calender. Extremely trivial almost footnote mention as the opening act for a heavy metal concert.
 * 3) The Hamburg article discussed above.
 * 4) The Birmingham Mail: Local newspaper. Just an album review.
 * 5) Debrecen Online: Local news portal. Looks like a decent feature, but source is trivial.
 * 6) RTV Slovenia: "mutlimedia" portal. Extremely trivial mention in a long list of bands that also played at a festival (not headliners).
 * 7) Cosmo.gr: Greek entertaiment bog. Says they also played at a heavy metal festival (not headliners).
 * 8) la Repubblica, Bologna insert: Local supplement to Italian newspaper. Content doesn't show for me but headline suggests a local concert announcement with the band playing second string (presumably the same tour mentioned in the next source).
 * 9) Dagens Nyheter: Major Swedish newspaper. Local concert announcement briefly mentioning that band played second string.
 * 10) American online heavy metal encyclopedia. Very scant mention. Actually, the only thing they say is that the band is big fans of the bands they played second string for in Italy and Sweden.
 * So, nothing substantial. Even added together, they don't add up to much. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please try harder. 3VOOR12 is far from a blog, and is published by Netherlands Public Broadcasting. I could go on to debunk the rest of your guesswork, but don't have the time or the inclination to deal with such filibustering. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with Phil Bridger and I note his great work at refurbishing the citations of the article. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. There are references (hence the "weak" in my delete !vote).  On balance, however, they seem to lack the in-depth treatment we look for to meet our notability standards.  While I'm happy with the Hamburger Abendblatt coverage and it is a step towards notability, it (and the mixture of non-RSs and trivial treatments) does not suffice to meet our standards for notability.  Not yet -- perhaps in the future, there will be greater coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. My reasoning is similar to Epeefleche's, but I've reached the opposite conclusion. The Birmingham Mail and Debrecen Online both seem pretty reliable (by Wikipedia standards at least). Yes, neither is national in scope, but that isn't a requirement of either WP:MUSIC[[ or [[WP:GNG. There's enough depth in the Debrecen piece at least (I can't see the album review but from what I know of the source would assume that it's of reasonable length too) that the band would appear to meet both guidelines, albeit barely. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2011 (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.