Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necronomicon (album)

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. JForget 22:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Necronomicon (album)

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood of Angels, this album has very little notability it its own right, lacks significant coverage, etc. Chzz ► 00:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did find this review from Horror Magazine, which as a print magazine is possibly a valid reliable source.--Michig (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Chzz has been kindly warned [1] about making excessive many Deletion Prods on articles. This is another example of the witch hunt that this user has been campaigning for against this band. Chzz is systematically removing all the Nox Arcana albums, having just removed the Darklore Manor album last week without getting consensus, and falsely claiming it ref'd self-pub sources (Fangoria and other music magazines are not published by the band, they are 3rd party sources). The Necronomicon album is certainly noteworthy and the sources are reliable. Nox Arcana itself has charted on Billboard in the Top Ten in the Holiday Charts. The Necronomicon album is mentioned in a book, Strange Sound of Cthulhu, in reference to Lovecraft inspirations, it has been featured on TV and used in several indie films and at major theme parks like Busche Gardens and Universal Studios. It is also the subject of 2 lawsuits for copyright infringement for other bands copying Nox Arcana's music (1. listed here on Google News, and 2. listed here on Fangoria, a long standing and reliable publication for horror entertainment news. I recommend a strong keep for this article and a warning to Chzz on further attempts to remove the other Nox Arcana albums. Ebonyskye (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the reasoning that Chzz uses for Blood of Angels does not apply here. This is a different album. AND, the Blood of Angels album was NOT removed, it was kept. Ebonyskye (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am always prepared to put up a defence for articles on fringe or cult subjects where it can be shown that there is a substantial cult interest, even if the sources are not conventionally considered "reliable". If there are plenty of sources, and the sources are amongst the more notable of the particular fringe, then I will support. Having looked at the sources given in the article, and then gone on a hunt for some more, I was disappointed at how few I could find. I was, for a while prepared to make a stand on the evidence of the book cited, as it devotes an entire chapter to the album. But I lost faith in that when I read that the cover was designed by one of the band members, and that the book is self-published. Essentially, this article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability requirements as the sources are not "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I recommend that the main elements of the article are used to create a short section within the parent Nox Arcana article, and Necronomicon (album) is deleted and consideration given to if "Necronomicon (album)" is a likely search term to warrant a redirect. SilkTork *^YES! 09:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting because another discussion long ago had suggested breaking up the main article into separate discography pages. Another admin had said the main article was too long so someone started the discography for Darklore Manor and I guess it got expanded after that. As for the Cthulhu book, it was not published by the band but by another publisher and covers a variety of topics of books, music and many other things devoted to Lovecraft. It is not self-published. It was published by a music magazine called Music Street Journal. And I think that the book uses Nox Arcana's Necronomicon CD cover says something about the notability of the album itself. I don't see any other bands who got featured on a book. Ebonyskye (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you search using the proper terms... The search terms I used "Nox Arcana, Necronomicon" brought up a bunch of listings, and "Nox Arcana vs Bushido" brought up many pages about that issue, and the sources are not self-published. If all you are searching is "Necronomicon (album)" only wiki comes up because no other site lists it that way (with the parens) and if you search just the title it brings up other books on the subject, which we all know is Lovecraft's creation. Searching YouTube brought up 768 videos for Necronomicon. Ebonyskye (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "very little notability" is not the same as no notability. There have never been exact quantitative values for what qualifies as "significant coverage", and for good reason. For music that is not part of the mainstream, just about any coverage is significant. And in this case it appears there is coverage. Additionally, it has not been demonstrated how keeping this entry hinders or disrupts the goal or purpose of the wiki, nor how removing the entry aids or strengthens that goal.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 16:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Band appears to be notable and this album has received some coverage, so I don't see a benefit to deleting the article.--Michig (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Music#Albums for Notability of the band and international coverage of the album. Secondly, per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists the album should be kept for Consistency in terms of providing a consistant and well-organized discography — the album pages have been in place for several years and is part of Wiki Music Project, with new additions being added as they are released (Nox Arcana currently has 11 albums). Until now, this was not a problem.

To further support, I proded two album articles and a book recently for lack of notability, and the prods were removed 1 and 2, 3. Editors claim that the band/book was notable, yet one of the bands has disbanded, and one album is not charted, nor is it covered in the press, and neither article contained references. The book is not notable and only one review was posted in response to the Prod. It should be noted that Chzz, the same editor who Afd'd this album, supports keeping his book article based on adding a few reviews and a link to an online bookstore, but nothing that specifically indicates notability of the book itself.

So, if the aforementioned three editors' rationale "(band or author is notable, therefore album or book is worthy of an article)" is accepted for 1, 2 and 3, then the same is true in this case. Keep. Ebonyskye (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Album is by a notable band (they have their own article); it is on a notable label; it has at least one reference on it to back up its notability; they have ten other album articles. Can I please urge people to consider starting merge discussions on the article talk page rather than bringing them here for outright deletion. That is what it says at both WP:MUSIC and WP:ALBUM if you really don't want to see artists have an article per album. – B.hotep •talk• 09:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect As Bubba hotep points out, an AfD discussion is not warranted for any album by a notable artist - if it doesn't have its own article it should be covered in the artists article and a redirect put in place. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Bubba hotep and SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy. Rlendog (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2009 (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.