Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Angel and the Rain

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) 15:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Angel and the Rain[edit]

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

Unnotable album. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. "Reviews" added appear to be user reviews and from primarily non-reliable sources, per WP:RS. Only one even says more than a few lines about the album. Was redirected to the artist page per WP:MUSIC, but article creator disputed without discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and Redirect~~ Keep. (see reason for change below.) Agreed, per the Wikipedia WP:MUSIC policy, this article makes no attempt to document, via unbiased third party established music reviewers or sources, that the album is notable. Until notability can be properly established and documented in this manner, it can only have a redirect to its artist. Wikipedia is not meant to be an advertising site. Scott P. (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 19:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stop!!! this platform is an english language Encyclopedia not only United Kingdom, many other people from the world are here readers, the album is narrated by few magazines in the world (orkus, Hard Rock, Zillo, Metal Hammer etc.)! the album is big rated in the USA, who had this english wikipedia platform many readers! a many people to get his information from here, therefore is the article right, he must only expanded! -- (User talk:Zombie433 · 23:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Zombie433. After following through with User:Zombie433's suggestions, I started by finding more established reviews at the first two searches I did at, BellaOnline and RockEyez.com. I've put these review links into the article. Next time I'll do more of my homework first. The original AfD nominator was correct regarding the poor quality of the original sole review that was in the article, however further searching seems to show that reliable reviews do exist. Scott P. (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of those actually reliable sources? BellaOnline looks like a low-end About.com type copy, with all editors being "ordinary men and women" and not actual music critics, with little editorial control or vesting of contributors beyond making sure you don't plagiarize and will churn out articles every week. Rockeyez looks like someone's self-published personal site, and again not an actual reliable sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Band and the album is also listed by MTV and the music videos runs at Night on the Programm of this Television, the band pio can find here: The LoveCrave - Bio at the German MTV site and its English translation, many other band articles who is here rated can i not find on several pages or in this MTV database. The band played since 2007 every year at Camden Underworld in London, according to this had the band a big fanbase in the UK and the fans will read here by wikipedia over his loved band and this album. (Zombie 433 talk) 00:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? Being aired on MTV German does not make it notable. Many music videos air on music channels. Again, like all topics, it needs SIGNIFICANT coverage in reliable, third-party sources and the claimed size of a fanbase is irrelevant. Without actual coverage, it isn't verifiable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bellaonline is actually worse than about.com, since the latter employs some working journalists in a few categories, whereas the former actively discourages them. But laut.de and zvuki.ru seem reputable enough. Both have reviews of this:[1] [2], adding to these the mtv mention, this looks good to stay. There's probably more in print, too; systemic bias and all that. Also rockeyez has a staff page listing its contributors, who have written for Metal Forces, Creem, Hit Parader etc. so it's not as bad as it seems. Metallers just like sites that look that way. 86.40.58.26 (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of those links actually reliable per Wikipedia standards? Can this be shown, not just presumed? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not correct to call it a presumption. I linked translations of their "about" pages which editors can go look at: they look good to me. This is a pretty solid way of determining the worth of a source when dealing with unfamiliar cultures or areas that are otherwise out of your expertise. I'm not going to wade through translations of web pages playing the old circular this-site-is-cited-by-another-site game when the "about" pages look this solid. You may wish to? Rather you than me, in any case. 86.40.58.26 (talk) 05:33, 30 December 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.