Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grinder (band)

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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grinder (band)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Existing external links are not reliable sources. There is a passing mention in this book on Turkish metal and not much else anywhere. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is a short bio in AllMusic here and a number of other references in the German wikipedia article here, including magazine article (Iron Pages magazine) so with book sources passes WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not clear to me that AllMusic is a reliable source, particularly since they do accept Product Submissions. I have not verified if the magazine article is WP:SIGCOV. So not a convincing WP:GNG case. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- AllMusic has gotten lots of debate in source reviews over the years, and it's nearly split down the middle among editors on the merits of its editorial independence. The database indeed encourages and accepts submissions. And they do have a staff that maintains adherence to editorial style, (e.g. copy editors) as well as staff writers and the use of professional freelancers for the larger, more obviously notable entries. However, their stated mission is to compile entries to account for any and all recorded music for sale. The result is the majority of content is by volunteer amateur stringers--usually fans of a particular genre--who are given access to submitted content and are free to write using as reference whatever they want, ranging from legitimate independent, third party sources (if they exist) or simply first-person user-submitted promotional materials. Editorial oversight for these contributors is little more than having their works subjected to in-house copy-editing. What this means is just because something is written about on AllMusic doesn't mean it meets the usual standards wikipedia uses to determine editorial independence of a source. Entries used as justification in AfD debates should be judged on a case-by-case basis. My general position is an AllMusic bio alone isn't enough. As for assessing the sources on the German wiki, I can't read the language so I won't weigh in on whether they are good or not. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All publications accept submissions even The New York Times, the majority of AFD band entries do not have an AllMusic bio so its not that inclusive and the particular reviewers credentials can be checked by a link on the site Atlantic306 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I'm inclined to accept AllMusic, but the other sources don't seem reliable, or fail to meet SigCov. I wasn't able to make a reliable interpretation of Iron Pages' reliability. It would be a Weak Keep if that is reliable. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2019 (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.