Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antiseptic Bloodbath

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 August 22.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 redirect to Tourniquet (band). It does appear that the sources are insufficient (per last comment on AfD). Redirecting to band article as is usual in these circumstances. Black Kite (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antiseptic Bloodbath

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An album that will likely not chart and does not meet notability guidelines. Album does not inherit notability from the band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Nouniquenames (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the album is notable per the independent sources listed in the article, including Blabbermouth, GospelMais (Brazilian), and The Metal Resource. 5minutes (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Blabbermouth entries are trivial coverage from a source that isn't particularly reliable. Trivial coverage at GospelMais and I don't know if it's a RS either. And the Dutch site is similarly lacking. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well let's be honest. It's a Christian Metal (aka "limited genre" - at some point, you have to ask if all non-Stryper Christian metal albums are trivial) album that hasn't even hit stores as a CD yet (only a very limited digital release). More reviews should be coming over the next few weeks as the album makes its way around. Hence, those "trivial" links should become less trivial. Personally, I think you jumped the gun on this nomination. Like I said on your page, less than 4 hours from page creation to your nomination. Give it some time. 5minutes (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be honest: WP:NALBUMS is the criteria. This album doesn't really have an expectation of meeting it. Even when the band was in its heyday, it received limited exposure from media. Granted, they have a cult following and are quite instrumental in the development of the genre, but every album must stand on its own.

And as for jumping the gun, the person who created the article is the one who should carry that moniker not the one who nominates it for deletion. Four hours is too long for it to be an article let along four weeks, which is how long this nomination could live. We should only be creating articles for notable subjects not every subject that may one day become notable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NALBUMS, notability issue falls under the WP:Notability, which calls for significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. I included links to Blabbermouth in the original article in order to assist in meeting this standard. I've added more articles for the same reason, and plan to add more as they become available (have patience, Walter). You toss them aside as trivial, but the real question is: are they reliable and independent sources and is the coverage significant? While the articles at both non-band sources contain some elements of a press release (as any announcement would), they contain some exposition into the band's career, the album's creation, etc. That pretty much covers "independent" and "significant", in terms of metal music (which isn't exactly going to be splashed across the front page of the NYT). I'll leave it to you whether you find Blabbermouth (arguably one of the best sources of news about the metal genre) as reliable or not. 5minutes (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is not just reliability of the sources but "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Not my words. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and what defines "significant coverage" of a Christian metal band? Should they be held to the same standards as Metallica? Or Stryper? I'd argue that mentions on major metal sites like Blabbermouth and HM Mag are significant enough. Obviously, you disagree, as you're welcome to do. 5minutes (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Blabbermouth is used on 3,620 pages in a variety of capacities and the HM magazine ref seems fine. Perhaps add a {{refimprove}} is in order but this passes WP:NALBUMS. Nik thestoned 12:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This album lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. HM merely verifies that it may be existing at some time in the future of the articles date. Blabbermouth sources do not provide in depth coverage of the album, the first is unrelated and just there to make the albums article look more credible, the second is just a press release reproduction saying the album is coming. Christian metal bands do not get special treatment. They and their albums go by the same guidelines as everyone else. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2012 (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.