Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seasons of Tragedy

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons of Tragedy

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

This article does not meet the notability guideline for music. Album has never charted. Bigvernie (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If the band is notable enough for an article then their albums should have articles on-wiki. Heavy metal albums rarely chart anyways. Pichpich (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct (on the second point, anyway): an album doesn't need to have charted to be notable. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep albums by subjects who are notable are notable. -DJSasso (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep album has received some coverage and is, according to Blabbermouth.net, "critically acclaimed" ([1]). extransit (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but that's weaker than weak--that a non-reliable (or at best only moderately reliable) sources 'says' that it's critically acclaimed without itself critically acclaiming it, that's nothing. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read the article on Blabbermouth.net (specifically the "Legacy" section), its a reliable source. extransit (talk) 04:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I read it. It's not an article, it's a blurb. I am not sure you understand what I'm saying. Drmies (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant read our article about Blabbermouth.net, sorry that my diction was not clear. But never-mind, it is a small point (you said it was not a reliable source, our article indicates that it is actually an authority on heavy metal) as you are right that blabbermouth's coverage of SoT is just a blurb. extransit (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--Oh, gotcha. There's been a lot of discussion about Blabbermouth; I think it should be judged on a case-by-case basis. I certainly don't want to say that nothing on Blabbermouth is trustworthy, but 'articles' (not used in irony) there are of very different ilks. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2010 (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.