Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Sorcery Written in Blood (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 06:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Sorcery Written in Blood[edit]

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

searched and can't establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. hasn't been covered in several publications from reliable/notable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - have you read through the previous AfD? There is a good explanation on why this topic passes WP:GNG, after being covered in both Firda and NRK's district office "NRK Sogn og Fjordane". Mentoz86 (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments given in the previous AfD (ie the reliable sources already given in the article). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is not enough coverage in reliable sources from which to write a Wikipedia article per WP:GNG. The topic merely is a subtopic of Gorgoroth and can be covered in that article in a subtpic length that is in proportion to the rest of the Gorgoroth article. The subtopic "A Sorcery Written in Blood" isn't ready for Wikipedia:Splitting and no one has provided arguments to establish that it is. The 1st AfD appeared to be more about rewarding "A Sorcery Written in Blood" with a Wikipedia article for making it on "the biggest newspaper in the county" and being noted by "Norways largest media organisation." You can't write a Wikipedia article from achievement. You need text from which to write a summary of that text. Delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the band's page. Not enough coverage to establish notability. Fails WP:NALBUMS. In any case, there is not enough content to justify a stand alone article. FurrySings (talk) 03:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While investigating this AfD I was surprised to find that I voted "Keep" in the first AfD for this article back in 2010. Nothing has changed since then, and the nominator this time should have looked at the first debate and made a more convincing argument on what's different now. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge consensus can change. Wikipedia is under more scrutiny and it's important for articles to meet certain basic standards. This article's defenders fail to respect the WP:GNG as one of those standards. The good thing about a merge is that it can be reverted and undone. But not until someone finds reliable third party sources to provide significant information about this album. Vcessayist (talk) 23:38, 6 October 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.