Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thunderbolt (Norwegian 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The result was Nomination Withdrawn.(non admin close) Undeath (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thunderbolt (Norwegian band)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

PROD was removed and I am listing this article as a result. I see no sources backing up claims of notability. As such, it fails WP:BAND and is a very WP:NN subject. Scarian Call me Pat 01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Nom withdrawn. Scarian Call me Pat 09:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Fails wp:band. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:MUSIC Mr Senseless (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

*Comment: Article complies to the following of MUSIC / WP:BAND:
 * 1: It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works
 * 4: Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source (see below), and still is one of the very few metal bands besides Satyricon, Dimmu Borgir and Pagan's Mind being frequently mentioned in the mainstream Norwegian press in addtion to the music press. And they have had several international tours/gigs (alone and with several other signifficant bands: )
 * 5: Has released two or more albums on a major label (Both records released on Massacre Records and FaceFront Records)


 * Massacre Records is signifficant label: Massacre Recors, [], see also: Massacre Records Thunderbolt web page, FaceFront Thunderbolt web page
 * Independent press review of record(s): VG (Norways largest newspaper), [http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/2006/11/14/482847.html Dagbladet (Norways second largest newspaper) - Love & Destruction, Dagbladet - Demons and Diamonds
 * Records for sale at Amazon: Love & Destruction, Demons and Diamonds
 * This has been debated before, stating that article was and is notable. See Talk:Thunderbolt_(Norwegian_band) and previous Articles for deletion/Thunderbolt (band), resulting in No Consensus for deletion.
 * Nonscarian (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Apart from your username and new account status being utterly suspicious I shall reply to your points:
 * 1) Prove it. Where are they?
 * 4) That source isn't considered WP:RS.
 * 5) I'm not so sure those labels are notable. Prove to me that they are. How long have both the labels existed for starters?
 * Those sources are all in Norwegian. This is the English Wikipedia. How can I check to see if they're factually accurate?
 * Having a listing on Amazon doesn't automatically infer notability.
 * It may have been debated before but consensus can change. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Scarian Call me Pat  02:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please reread WP:V: English sources are prefered but not required if only non-English sources are available. —Quasirandom (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Read for the sixth time in my wiki-career :-) - I can't tell if they've actually released 2 albums on a notable label... mainly because I can't read Norwegian, buddy. Scarian Call me Pat  11:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can't, but others who read Norwegian can. That satisfies the policy. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per Nonscarian ; if their albums are indeed on Massacre then they're probably notable by that criterion. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, are reasonably well-known in Norway, have performed internationally, and have released albums on significant labels. And the only available references being in Norwegian doesn't mean the topic isn't notable. Esteffect (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment and reply, mainly to Pat aka User:Scarian and User:Nonscarian:
 * 1 - Works published under FaceFront Records and Massacre Records should surely be valid. There is no debate regarding the notability of e.g. the Fates Warning, King Diamond or Pagan's Mind articles, now is there? (I.e. agree with User:TenPoundHammer). E.g. only lists signifficant Norwegian releases.
 * 4 - Even disregarded the band webpage source (per WP:RS) and the fact that User:Scarian does not read Norwegian, lots of users here do. I can confirm the other sources are signifficant. Should we scrap French or Cantoneese sources just because I cannot understand them? In my opinion articles are valid in english (as well as norwegian) even if most sources are not in english.
 * Even if consensus may have changed, this band is well within limits of noticability aka WP:BAND. However, should that change furthermore, as in 'to the contrary', I guess most band in english Wikipedia (and most other languages) will have to be scrapped as well.

Noban (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment above user is new, only edits to the Thunderbolt article. I agree with their argument but if I'm correct at suspecting it's a sock, I don't think they're doing the keep argument much good. Esteffect (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * has been tagged as a likely sock. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Struck and blocked. Confirmed sock. Scarian Call me Pat 03:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

85.164.157.152 (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Complies to WP:BAND by having done national and internation shows, even with other famous which has solid entries here like british Paul Di'Anno formerly of Iron maiden, danish King Diamond and swedish Sabaton, as well as two records on major labels. Actually, most likely three by 2008. They have also done a few big festivals, mainly national ones though.


 * Keep Meets point #5 of WP:MUSIC - two albums released on Massacre Records. Lugnuts (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no English sources currently in the article to support that claim, buddy. Scarian Call me Pat  11:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It does now. I've added a link to allmusic.com, which was mentioned at the article's previous nomination for deletion back in October 2005. Lugnuts (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * delete this is a non-notable subject and it fails WP:MUSIC. Peter Fleet (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep notable subject per multiple sections of WP:MUSIC and meets criteria of WP:V. Major significance english sources: Metal Archives ( and sub-pages), Metal Observer (, .) Minor significance english sources:, , , , . (Only online sources, but is difficult to link to printed press...) Will add relevant english sources to main article. Username-2008-02-19 (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; emphasis on English sources completely inappropriate here. Band seems to pass WP:MUSIC.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You can read Norwegian? :-O Scarian Call me Pat  15:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All it matters is that one person can. English language sources are preferable, but not required. matt91486 (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - The releases on Massacre Records are definitely proven by the Massacre Records website, which, though the text is in Norwegian, clearly shows on the right sidebar that there were two releases with the company. matt91486 (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The band has released albums on a notable record label. Incidentally, the Massacre Records site linked from the article is in German, rather than Norwegian, and I can read it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it passes WP:MUSIC then it passes WP:MUSIC. Demands that the sources be "in English" are outside policy, and would lead to a pro-anglophone systematic bias of titanic proportions if they were accepted. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:20, 3 March 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.