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.
Randykitty (
talk) 13:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Promotionally-written article for non-notable album (band's own article is also in pretty poor shape, possible walled garden).
DMacks (
talk) 20:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete both the album and band as it seems the band is also not notable with my searches finding nothing better
this. Sure the albums are have some Allmusic reviews so there's thus a profile for the band but there's not much aside from that including to support and improve the article.
DMacks, what are you thoughts of adding the band to the nomination as well?
SwisterTwistertalk 05:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)reply
No objection to adding the band itself here. I had not, figuring maybe someone who is more familiar with this topic would have a better chance of finding the band to be notable (and hence redirect the album to it) than I could. But if not, then also I would include their other three albums.
DMacks (
talk) 05:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I was almost also going to think of redirecting to the band until I saw the big picture and although it helps to have familiar people look at it, I think it seems clear this band is not notable and there's no possible improvement.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
☮JAaron95Talk 06:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirect all albums to the band, Keep the band (changed from "delete all")Amended, see below.- no chart positions, no independent sources, no coverage to be found, web searches turn up sales outlets, and some rare primary pieces and blogs, fails
WP:NMUSIC and
WP:GNGKraxler (
talk) 23:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Kraxler. How can you say there are no independent sources when the some articles already had independent sources and the above discussion clearly states there is independent sources?
duffbeerforme (
talk) 11:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
In the article "Symptoms of Humanity" there are 3 links: tha band's page, and the record label's page, they are not independent. The third is a dead link. In the other three album articles there are three connected links, and only "Youth, Betrayal and the Awakening" has one Allmusic review. The band may pass
WP:NBAND # 5, but stand-alone articles on the albums are not warranted.
Kraxler (
talk) 18:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Why are you ignoring the allmusic review on the symptoms page?
duffbeerforme (
talk) 01:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Because the one on the Symptoms page is hidden in a box, and it's not about Symptoms of Humanities, it's a link to the Allmusic homepage, clicking on it, it shows right now a record by Lana Del Rey. There's a link to an Allmusic review of Symptoms at the band page, but one swallow doeth not make summer. I already conceded to keep the band, and keep the few reviews there.
Kraxler (
talk) 20:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep the band. Multiple albums on Epitaph satisfies
WP:BAND. Allmusic sources are good.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 06:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I have updated the article so that it now inclused coverage from independent reliable sources. Other sources that may be of use are
[1][2][3][4][5]. Given that they were an Epitaph band it's safe to assume punk music mags of the era reviewed their albums.
BAM (magazine) did.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 11:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete All.
WP:BAND only says a band "may" be notable if they meet one of the criteria. This band clearly fails
WP:GNG and
WP:BASIC. Searches on News, Newspapers, Highbeam all returned zero hits. The 3 sources (2 of them are repeats) above are not persuasive. One is not a secondary source, one appears to be a simple listing, and the third is a non-
WP:RS (a blog).
Onel5969TT me 13:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete All I have to agree with editor
Onel5969 here. Neither the band, and certainly not the albums, arise to the level of significant coverage. --
Bejnar (
talk) 03:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)reply
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 delete.
Randykitty (
talk) 13:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Promotionally-written article for non-notable album (band's own article is also in pretty poor shape, possible walled garden).
DMacks (
talk) 20:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete both the album and band as it seems the band is also not notable with my searches finding nothing better
this. Sure the albums are have some Allmusic reviews so there's thus a profile for the band but there's not much aside from that including to support and improve the article.
DMacks, what are you thoughts of adding the band to the nomination as well?
SwisterTwistertalk 05:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)reply
No objection to adding the band itself here. I had not, figuring maybe someone who is more familiar with this topic would have a better chance of finding the band to be notable (and hence redirect the album to it) than I could. But if not, then also I would include their other three albums.
DMacks (
talk) 05:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I was almost also going to think of redirecting to the band until I saw the big picture and although it helps to have familiar people look at it, I think it seems clear this band is not notable and there's no possible improvement.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
☮JAaron95Talk 06:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirect all albums to the band, Keep the band (changed from "delete all")Amended, see below.- no chart positions, no independent sources, no coverage to be found, web searches turn up sales outlets, and some rare primary pieces and blogs, fails
WP:NMUSIC and
WP:GNGKraxler (
talk) 23:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Kraxler. How can you say there are no independent sources when the some articles already had independent sources and the above discussion clearly states there is independent sources?
duffbeerforme (
talk) 11:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
In the article "Symptoms of Humanity" there are 3 links: tha band's page, and the record label's page, they are not independent. The third is a dead link. In the other three album articles there are three connected links, and only "Youth, Betrayal and the Awakening" has one Allmusic review. The band may pass
WP:NBAND # 5, but stand-alone articles on the albums are not warranted.
Kraxler (
talk) 18:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Why are you ignoring the allmusic review on the symptoms page?
duffbeerforme (
talk) 01:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Because the one on the Symptoms page is hidden in a box, and it's not about Symptoms of Humanities, it's a link to the Allmusic homepage, clicking on it, it shows right now a record by Lana Del Rey. There's a link to an Allmusic review of Symptoms at the band page, but one swallow doeth not make summer. I already conceded to keep the band, and keep the few reviews there.
Kraxler (
talk) 20:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep the band. Multiple albums on Epitaph satisfies
WP:BAND. Allmusic sources are good.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 06:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I have updated the article so that it now inclused coverage from independent reliable sources. Other sources that may be of use are
[1][2][3][4][5]. Given that they were an Epitaph band it's safe to assume punk music mags of the era reviewed their albums.
BAM (magazine) did.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 11:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete All.
WP:BAND only says a band "may" be notable if they meet one of the criteria. This band clearly fails
WP:GNG and
WP:BASIC. Searches on News, Newspapers, Highbeam all returned zero hits. The 3 sources (2 of them are repeats) above are not persuasive. One is not a secondary source, one appears to be a simple listing, and the third is a non-
WP:RS (a blog).
Onel5969TT me 13:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete All I have to agree with editor
Onel5969 here. Neither the band, and certainly not the albums, arise to the level of significant coverage. --
Bejnar (
talk) 03:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)reply
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.