Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice of Doom


 * 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 and redirect to Lorne Greene. Not a case of G11 since that does require the text to be promotional not the intent but that does not change the fact that notability was not established. Turning it back into the pre-article redirect seems uncontroversial though.  So Why  10:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Voice of Doom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage of this band to show they pass WP:GNG, and they certainly don't pass WP:NMUSIC. Was a redirect to Lorne Greene (one of his nicknames).  Onel 5969  TT me 16:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Is a redirect to Lorne Greene's page for his nickname, more relevant than an established musical group who merely want to have a Wikipedia page? Wouldn't a "non-linked" mention of Lorne's nickname be sufficient? Voice of Doom is a legitimate act with multiple website mentions and reviews. They're also a licensed brand available on iTunes.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete . Speedy delete. History section is fairly substantially similar to http://pyrrhicvictoryrecordings.com/voice-of-doom leading to the suspicion of copyvio and/or spam. The rest of the "references" are unimpressive. I see this as little more than a coatrack for the links at the bottom. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

--John Steinheimer (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)I must say, I'm utterly confused by a user who thinks someone's nickname warrants an entire Wikipedia page when it can be noted on the person's page itself. The user claims the artist's references are unimpressive while most of the musical groups I research have supplied less. Also, the claim that the artist's history section is fairly substantially similar to its record label is incorrect. I did reference the record label's information but has substantially been rewritten. The band's history is in fact, it's history, so it will have similarities. I admit I'm a newbie to creating Wikipedia pages but a debate over whether a person's nickname should overrule an established recording artist's Wiki page is ridiculous.--John Steinheimer (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Seriously? This thing is getting a 65.1% score on Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Whole paragraphs here are clearly plagiarised. This does not count as "substantially rewritten". It doesn't even count as "half-heartedly rewritten to obfuscate plagiarism".
 * Normally, I wouldn't gut an article while it is being considered for deletion but Copyright Violation is a special case. I am going to rip out the minimum to get that score down to an an acceptable level. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. Score is now down to 16.7%. Some sentences still show signs of being lifted with minor changes but the worst is gone. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I am also the author of that bio on the Pyrrhic Victory Recordings website, if that helps. I'm sure I can reword it further. Thanks for the heads up.--John Steinheimer (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * OK. That seems to replace the copyright issue with a conflict of interests issue. I'm upgrading my !vote to Speedy delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, speedy delete per G11 if Steinheinheimer is the one who wrote "group who merely want to have a Wikipedia page". The article cites two reviews by people from their own Pyrrhic Victory Recordings. Also, for people over a certain age, that happens to be a very famous nickname, much better known than some obscure band. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete References are either user submitted or small time, unimportant sources for establishing notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Restore the redirect. Band is non-notable per above. Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:17, 28 June 2017 (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.