Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Old Dead Tree


 * 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. The band released at least two albums, and they are reviewed by AllMusic. This establishes reasonable notability. The citations should be improved, though. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Old Dead Tree

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. This band seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Article has no third-party references (nor do the de, fr, or pl articles), and a good faith search hasn't revealed any significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Actually, this band does meet WP:MUSIC in that they have released at least 2 albums on a major independent label, if seasons of mist isn't major, what is? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  12:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Season of Mist isn't as big as all that, but I agree that it's big enough to mark this band as notable. Precious Roy (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps you're right, but you would agree that Seasons of Mist is as grim as they come, no? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If Season of Mist really is so notable, it's odd that their own article doesn't have any third-party references either... but since I know nothing about the metal scene, I'll defer to those who do and support a Keep here. Terraxos (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that should be added, but remember, black metal is generally not a commercial thing, so the label isn't major as in EMI or Virgin. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete; I can't find the notability in any third party sources. I recognize that this is a non commercial thing but does it have sufficient importance in its non commercial aspects..back to reliable third party sources. --Stormbay (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry? it's a band on a notable label? why does it matter? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an unresolved point of debate whether notability sub-guidelines such as WP:MUSIC are subsidiary to WP:N, i.e. whether the more restrictive requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources per WP:N must be met for a band to be considered notable enough to be the subject of an article, or it is enough to meet the less restrictive requirements of WP:MUSIC. Jfire (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2008 (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.