Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Docker's Guild (2nd nomination)

Docker's Guild

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

I closed the firs tAfD as a technical non-consensus because of the over-personal nature of the discussion which in my opinion was making it too difficult to deal with the question in an objective policy-based manner. (I have no personal opinion on the question-it's not a field where I have any particular understanding) .

The original deletion reason given by NinjaRobotPirate was This is a musical project that's sourced almost entirely to official websites. There does not seem to be enough third-party coverage to warrant an article

That's a valid reason for a AfD nomination, and discussing whether that is correct would be the way to proceed. DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Taking a look at the references used in this article [1] it is clear to me that this article should be deleted. There is also a problem with the main article which has over 10 reference points going to his Facebook page. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I mentioned at the first AfD, none of this suggests minimal solid independent notability and is at best redirected to Douglas R. Docker's article. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like I said in the previous nomination, there isn't enough third-party coverage to pass WP:NMUSIC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NMUSIC. Doesn't appear to meet the requirements to satisfy NMUSIC. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a stand-alone article. The independent coverage in English is virtually zero. Once the descriptions of the publicity campaigns for the project and the description of the project itself (sourced entirely to Docker's websites) are removed, there is virtually nothing left. I then checked Italian websites, since Docker is based there. I found two interviews with him publicising the project on Italian heavy metal websites, this on metalhammer.it and this on heavymetalwebzine.it, plus this review of the very first album in the series on italiadimetallo.it. Obviously this is a very niche area and I have no idea whether these are significant websites. Even so, the publicity interviews on heavymetalwebzine.it and metalhammer.it are hardly independent sources and simply part of the publicity campaign. The brief description of the project already in Douglas R. Docker is more than sufficient, although as Somedifferentstuff points out, that article too is very problematic. Willing to change my mind if someone can find truly independent, in-depth coverage of this project in reliable sources—in any language. I've had no luck so far. Voceditenore (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article has long been problematic and problematically edited. I think the article would look more notable if it wasn't written in such a promotional way. Merge it into Douglas R. Docker and do lots of clean-up and I think you could get one good article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the promotional content in Docker's Guild were edited out, i.e. virtually the entire article, the subject has to be notable, not simply look notable. That can't happen without evidence that independent sources have taken sufficient notice of it to write about it in depth. There is already some material about this project in Douglas R. Docker. Without independent sourcing, I'm not sure how much of anything in the article under discussion could be usable in that article apart from a bare-bones description of their latest release possibly sourced from this review on getreadytorock.me.uk, although I'm not sure how notable that site is. Its contributors seem more like knowledgeable amateurs. Does anyone know if either of the two Docker's Guild albums to date have charted? I rather doubt it. If they had, there would be more written about them rather than by them. Rather than merge, which necessitates keeping all the drivel of the current article in the history of the redirect, why not simply delete this one, rewrite and improve Douglas R. Docker in situ with new references, then create a re-direct. Voceditenore (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) To be fair, I think Bondegezou was suggesting that if the article was stripped of its promotionalism, its notablity be would be immediately apparent.11:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]