Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zemial


 * 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. –Darkwind (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Zemial

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Virtually unknown band / article with zero sources. Glucken123 (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - The sourcing in the article is horrible. Metal Archives, Facebook and some shop site? Oh my god! But anyways, I looked this fellow up and I did not found much reliable sources. The usual crap like Discogs, Metal Archives, Spotify, Bandcamp, Rate Your Music and the like is here, and shops where you can buy merch, and blogs, but I found nothing that indicates notability. Even though I found some interviews and album reviews, those sites look like blogs. So I think Zemial is not notable. But I don't vote yet as there might be some reliable sources I am unaware of. I did not find any in Google. Update: I found this album review in Rock Hard (magazine), a notable German metal/rock magazine. But one source is not enough GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. I spent a lot of time tidying this up in February 2019 (and again in March this year). At the time, I wondered just what made this notable and tagged it as questionable, in the expectation that someone would improve the sources or supply evidence of notability. Nothing since convinces me it is notable. Emeraude (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment What about this one? This album review in German. I think Metal.de is a reliable site. It looks reliable at least. But if it's not then I will change my mind to delete because I could not find anything else that establishes notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the coverage in reliable German sources such as Metal de and Rock Hard magazine, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing reliable about METAL.DE. Glucken123 (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * evidence or just your opinion ? Atlantic306 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Atlantic306 unless evidence is provided to back up the "unreliable" argument. --Micky (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment How about addressing the issue that the only part of the entire article that is referenced (reliably or not) is the first sentence? In other words, we have a source that the subject exists, but that's all! Emeraude (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources which prove that something exists, but has not achieved anything, do not validate the existence of an article. If, say, a political party had an article with inadequate sources, it would be deleted, and this underlines the problem of only sourcing an organisation for what they are expected to do, rather than adding what they have achieved. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Week Keep Althouth there isn't much about him, it looks like he has gained some recognition - notablility as project/mysician Zemial/Archon Vorskaath in the German speaking world, but also elsewhere . True, the article is perhaps mainly a product of connected contributors as its history record indicates, and needs editing and addition of proper sources to verify its content. ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Note how Glucken123 did not answer to the question whether there is evidence about "there is nothing reliable about Metal.de" or is it just his opinion. That is always a suspicious sign. I think that's just his opinion and Metal.de is indeed a reliable source. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete If the article was a stub and there was evidence above of being easily expandable, I could consider a "keep", but as it is, with us struggling to find good sources, I think we're best off nuking it and starting again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Just looking at the article at face value I see nothing of notable accomplishment. No major labels, gold disks, or industry awards.  In general if one is having trouble finding independent coverage for a bio then that person also fails GNG. Blue Riband► 21:20, 9 July 2020 (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.