Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venomous Concept


 * 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 per WP:BAND#6 argument which went unchallenged in this debate.  Spinning Spark  12:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Venomous Concept

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable band; I can't see any evidence that it meets any of the criteria in WP:BAND, even tho those criteria are astonishingly wide. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

 Keep  - Venomous Concept has at least two notable members per WP:BAND: --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC) It's a pity that some editors seem to view notability as some sort of rule-based game. It isn't; it's reflection of the basic principle that an encyclopedia's content is derived from third-party coverage in reliable sources. If those sources don't exist, then the basis for an article doesn't exist. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Shane Embury is a member of Napalm Death and Brujeria
 * 2) Dan Lilker is a member of Nuclear Assault, Stormtroopers of Death and Anthrax
 * 3) Buzz Osborne is/was a member of Melvins and Fantômas
 * 4) Danny Herrera is/was a member of Napalm Death and Anaal Nathrakh
 * Reply. However, this particular collaboration appears to have has received almost no coverage in independent reliable sources, apart from a brief mention of one of their albums. If the article is kept, most of its content should be removed as unsourced.
 * "However, this particular collaboration appears to have has received almost no coverage in independent reliable sources, apart from a brief mention of one of their albums." I know Venomous Concept have had articles in assorted metal magazines like Decibel and Terrorizer (both of which are reliable sources), so the coverage is out there. Someone just has to take the time to find those issues of those magazines. Whether that means this article is worth keeping in the hopes that someone adds that info, or delete for now and remake when those sources are found, is up to you, but I just wanted to mention that the info establishing their notability does exist. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 *  Reply  - Again, how do we choose to which article to redirect? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 *  Reply. We don't have to redirect anywhere. In this case I don't see that any of the musician pages is a plausible redirect target, but if you think that the band is more closely associated with one of its members, we can redirect there. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. It should be obvious, I think, that a band containing multiple notable musicians is inherently worth covering in an encyclopedia and is almost certain to have received coverage in other sources. As MrMoustacheMM has indicated, coverage in metal-specific print sources is very likely to exist, and there is also online coverage which wasn't hard to find, e.g., , , , , . The record label bio should also be acceptable for confirming basic facts. --Michig (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 *  Reply  - Thank you Michig! --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:BAND criteria #6. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:33, 18 March 2013 (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.