Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krieg: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 09:54, 6 November 2009

Krieg

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Currently doesn't meet criteria for inclusion. Has been unsourced since March 2008 and still doesn't meet WP:V. Lack of sourcing also causes problems when trying to prove it meets WP:BAND. Many thanks, Gazimoff 12:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Gazimoff 12:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The group has a biography at MusicMight ([1]) and has been covered a few times by Blabbermouth.net ([2], [3]). Coverage by major publications within the genre, along with the extensive connections the group has with other well-known groups in the genre, indicates it passes WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably not worth referencing this per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, unless the article is updated to reflect it. If it is, I'm happy to withdraw but for now it remains completely unreferenced. Many thanks, Gazimoff 17:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add a general link to Google Books or some such aggregator: I gave specific links to third-party sources. Chubbles (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment about the article itself remains. Gazimoff 18:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Chubbles may be getting at, and what I was trying to say in the above Danyel Gérard nomination where I asked if you had done a WP:BEFORE check, is that under that guidance the onus is actually on the nom to "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, try to confirm that such sources don't exist." I think that the way you are approaching it is the opposite--as thought you don't have a WP:BEFORE obligation to check for sources, but can simply nom an article for AfD if the article itself doesn't reflect the sources--and then ask the respondents who are saying that there are in fact sources (the check you should have done) that it is their obligation to put them in the article. But its sort of the other way around--in the sense that it is actually the nom's obligation to look first for the sources before nominating the article. Make sense?--Epeefleche (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always check for sources before nominating something for delete, but if it's either not straightforward or clear if there are good quality or reliable sources, I almost always take it to AfD. Tagging doesn't help - the article has been tagged for failing WP:V for over a year. In fact, it still fails WP:V - it really grids my gears when people state that they have found sources but don't update the article and add them. The article gets tagged for lacking sources, and we all go round the AfD loop again. If you have found sources, add them to the article. Don't just trumpet them here as it doesn't solve the fundamental problem - we have a policy called WP:V and currently it fails it. Hope this makes sense. Gazimoff 09:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just enough coverage of the band found, and Krieg mainman Imperial went on to join the Metal supergroup Twilight.--Michig (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 *:::My comment about the article itself remains. '''''<font color="green">[[User:Gazimoff|Gazi]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Gazimoff|moff]]</font>''''' 18:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 *::::I think what Chubbles may be getting at, and what I was trying to say in the above Danyel Gérard nomination where I asked if you had done a [[WP:BEFORE]] check, is that under that guidance the onus is actually on the nom to "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, try to confirm that such sources don't exist."  I think that the way you are approaching it is the opposite--as thought you don't have a WP:BEFORE obligation to check for sources, but can simply nom an article for AfD if the article itself doesn't reflect the sources--and then ask the respondents who are saying that there are in fact sources (the check you should have done) that it is their obligation to put them in the article.  But its sort of the other way around--in the sense that it is actually the nom's obligation to look first for the sources before nominating the article.  Make sense?--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 09:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
+*::::::I always check for sources before nominating something for delete, but if it's either not straightforward or clear if there are good quality or reliable sources, I almost always take it to AfD. Tagging doesn't help - the article has been tagged for failing [[WP:V]] for over a year. In fact, it still fails [[WP:V]] - it really grids my gears when people state that they have found sources but don't update the article and add them. The article gets tagged for lacking sources, and we all go round the AfD loop again. If you have found sources, add them to the article. Don't just trumpet them here as it doesn't solve the fundamental problem - we have a policy called [[WP:V]] and currently it fails it. Hope this makes sense. '''''<font color="green">[[User:Gazimoff|Gazi]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Gazimoff|moff]]</font>''''' 09:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Keep'''. Just enough coverage of the band found, and Krieg mainman Imperial went on to join the Metal supergroup [[Twilight (band)|Twilight]].--[[User:Michig|Michig]] ([[User talk:Michig|talk]]) 17:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 <hr style="width:50%;" />