Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symptoms of Humanity


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Symptoms of Humanity

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotionally-written article for non-notable album (band's own article is also in pretty poor shape, possible walled garden). DMacks (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete both the album and band as it seems the band is also not notable with my searches finding nothing better this. Sure the albums are have some Allmusic reviews so there's thus a profile for the band but there's not much aside from that including to support and improve the article., what are you thoughts of adding the band to the nomination as well? SwisterTwister   talk  05:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection to adding the band itself here. I had not, figuring maybe someone who is more familiar with this topic would have a better chance of finding the band to be notable (and hence redirect the album to it) than I could. But if not, then also I would include their other three albums. DMacks (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was almost also going to think of redirecting to the band until I saw the big picture and although it helps to have familiar people look at it, I think it seems clear this band is not notable and there's no possible improvement. SwisterTwister   talk  06:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Now including in this nom the band: And their other albums: as all failing to reach WP:BAND notability or receive substantial independent reporting of any kind. DMacks (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  06:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect all albums to the band, Keep the band (changed from "delete all") Amended, see below. - no chart positions, no independent sources, no coverage to be found, web searches turn up sales outlets, and some rare primary pieces and blogs, fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Kraxler. How can you say there are no independent sources when the some articles already had independent sources and the above discussion clearly states there is independent sources? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In the article "Symptoms of Humanity" there are 3 links: tha band's page, and the record label's page, they are not independent. The third is a dead link. In the other three album articles there are three connected links, and only "Youth, Betrayal and the Awakening" has one Allmusic review. The band may pass WP:NBAND # 5, but stand-alone articles on the albums are not warranted. Kraxler (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you ignoring the allmusic review on the symptoms page? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the one on the Symptoms page is hidden in a box, and it's not about Symptoms of Humanities, it's a link to the Allmusic homepage, clicking on it, it shows right now a record by Lana Del Rey. There's a link to an Allmusic review of Symptoms at the band page, but one swallow doeth not make summer. I already conceded to keep the band, and keep the few reviews there. Kraxler (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep the band. Multiple albums on Epitaph satisfies WP:BAND. Allmusic sources are good. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have updated the article so that it now inclused coverage from independent reliable sources. Other sources that may be of use are    . Given that they were an Epitaph band it's safe to assume punk music mags of the era reviewed their albums. BAM (magazine) did. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete All. WP:BAND only says a band "may" be notable if they meet one of the criteria. This band clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Searches on News, Newspapers, Highbeam all returned zero hits. The 3 sources (2 of them are repeats) above are not persuasive. One is not a secondary source, one appears to be a simple listing, and the third is a non-WP:RS (a blog).  Onel 5969  TT me 13:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete All I have to agree with editor  Onel 5969  here. Neither the band, and certainly not the albums, arise to the level of significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 03:43, 21 September 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.