- 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. Tone 17:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Hellripper ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a band, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. There are notability claims here (being signed to a reasonably notable record label and touring) that would be acceptable if the article were sourced properly, but there's nothing stated here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have the correct type and quality and depth of sourcing -- but eight of the fourteen footnotes here are from blogs, another four are from their own self-published web presence on their own website, their Bandcamp and their record label, and another one is the self-published website of a festival they played at, which means that 13 of the 14 footnotes are not notability-supporting sources at all. Only one reference here (#5, Vice) is real coverage from a real media outlet, but a band has to have more than just one of those to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. As always, the notability question is not "have they done stuff?" -- it's "have they been the subject of real media coverage in real media outlets about the stuff they've done?" Bearcat ( talk) 15:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 15:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 15:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Current article sourcing is definitely inadequate, but they've been reviewed in several independent magazines, like [1] from Louder Sound, [2] from Kerrang!, and [3] from The Quietus. This 2017 story in The Guardian questions his notability ("marginally better known", "promoted largely via social media", "tiny pockets of audiences") but does mention his "laudatory reviews" and "global reach"; with the addition of the above sources from 2020 covering his latest album, I think it's sufficient for WP:MUSICBIO. DanCherek ( talk) 16:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm doing this Talk thing wrong, this is my first foray into this side of Wikipedia. Vice has several other articles mentioning Hellripper but I didn't want it to get dinged for using too many links to the same source. While not in the same realm as Vice, sites like Metal Sucks and Metal Underground are both relatively notable within the metal community. Is the deciding factor the mainstream coverage, or notability within the sphere that the subject exists in? I reviewed the Verifiability page, but I'm still unclear about that. Specifically: the self-published sources states that self-published material (eg: the Hellripper Bandcamp page, or the Peaceville Records page) can be used as long as several criteria are met, which in my eyes seems to be the case here. I've added additional citations including the Kerrang mention above, and one from a major radio station in Toronto for additional points in the notability column. When I've got more time I can figure out how to work in The Guardian article, I just don't want to cite 30 different reviews to the latest record as proof that the band is notable. Do self-published websites with reasonably large communities still fall under the general self-published no-go rules as well? Regarding the DIY festival's DIY published website, numerous notable underground music festivals self-publish, or only publish on social media. In these situations, what is the preferred method for citations? RobbieCrash ( talk) 04:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability demonstrated. WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - The previous voters have located viable sources. The article certainly needs to be cleaned up, with a lot of fan trivia removed, but there is enough media coverage on this act to support a basic stub article. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 23:39, 21 February 2021 (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.
- 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. Tone 17:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Hellripper ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a band, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. There are notability claims here (being signed to a reasonably notable record label and touring) that would be acceptable if the article were sourced properly, but there's nothing stated here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have the correct type and quality and depth of sourcing -- but eight of the fourteen footnotes here are from blogs, another four are from their own self-published web presence on their own website, their Bandcamp and their record label, and another one is the self-published website of a festival they played at, which means that 13 of the 14 footnotes are not notability-supporting sources at all. Only one reference here (#5, Vice) is real coverage from a real media outlet, but a band has to have more than just one of those to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. As always, the notability question is not "have they done stuff?" -- it's "have they been the subject of real media coverage in real media outlets about the stuff they've done?" Bearcat ( talk) 15:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 15:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 15:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Current article sourcing is definitely inadequate, but they've been reviewed in several independent magazines, like [1] from Louder Sound, [2] from Kerrang!, and [3] from The Quietus. This 2017 story in The Guardian questions his notability ("marginally better known", "promoted largely via social media", "tiny pockets of audiences") but does mention his "laudatory reviews" and "global reach"; with the addition of the above sources from 2020 covering his latest album, I think it's sufficient for WP:MUSICBIO. DanCherek ( talk) 16:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm doing this Talk thing wrong, this is my first foray into this side of Wikipedia. Vice has several other articles mentioning Hellripper but I didn't want it to get dinged for using too many links to the same source. While not in the same realm as Vice, sites like Metal Sucks and Metal Underground are both relatively notable within the metal community. Is the deciding factor the mainstream coverage, or notability within the sphere that the subject exists in? I reviewed the Verifiability page, but I'm still unclear about that. Specifically: the self-published sources states that self-published material (eg: the Hellripper Bandcamp page, or the Peaceville Records page) can be used as long as several criteria are met, which in my eyes seems to be the case here. I've added additional citations including the Kerrang mention above, and one from a major radio station in Toronto for additional points in the notability column. When I've got more time I can figure out how to work in The Guardian article, I just don't want to cite 30 different reviews to the latest record as proof that the band is notable. Do self-published websites with reasonably large communities still fall under the general self-published no-go rules as well? Regarding the DIY festival's DIY published website, numerous notable underground music festivals self-publish, or only publish on social media. In these situations, what is the preferred method for citations? RobbieCrash ( talk) 04:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - Notability demonstrated. WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - The previous voters have located viable sources. The article certainly needs to be cleaned up, with a lot of fan trivia removed, but there is enough media coverage on this act to support a basic stub article. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 23:39, 21 February 2021 (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.