Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chronicles of Israfel

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 delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Israfel[edit]

[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)

does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the GNG. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 23:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has multiple independent coverage and reviews in the article such as Metal Temple, Muzik Etc, Heavy, Rockmusic Raider, and Musicology, passes WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually check the sources? Rock Music Raider is a blog and not RS. The Musicology source is dead, and there doesn't appear to be an archived version available, so I can't check if this passes RS or not. Metal Temple might be reliable, but the author of the piece is not listed among the staff and writers, either past or current, so I have to assume it was a reader who submitted the review and is therefore not acceptable as a source. I guess Muzik Etc. and Heavy are RS, but this isn't really my field, so I'm not sure about the reliability of these sites. Richard3120 (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reference here that's really doing anything at all in terms of getting the band over GNG is the Heavy review — of the other four, two are blogs, one is a dead link whose former content and ability to be considered a reliable source at all are both completely unverifiable, and the last is a profile of a band member which doesn't say anything more about this band than a glancing namecheck of its existence in an overview of his entire career. This is not enough coverage to make a band "notable just because media coverage exists", if they don't have any strong claim to passing any of NMUSIC's more achievement-oriented notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 04:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a simple Google search uncovers no additional sources. Fails WP:GNG. I initially thought a merge and redirect to Dominic Cifarelli might work, but that is itself a redirect. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:17, 5 August 2018 (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.