Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unseen Terror

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. Though the sources should be used in the article and not just added in the references section :) (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unseen Terror

[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)

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A short-lived British extreme metal band. While Mitch Harris' other projects like Meathook Seed, Righteous Pigs etc. yielded reliable sources, Unseen Terror did not. They are not notable for Wikipedia. The sources presented in the article are not notable or independent (that interview could be the only semi-reliable source, however, it is not available), so we are left with the site of their record label (not independent) and Spirit of Metal (unreliable database that can be edited by anyone). I also did a Google search and the results were the following: other unreliable databases like Discogs and Metal Archives, stuff like Facebook, Amazon, Spotify, Last.fm and the like which are also not acceptable for sourcing, shops where you can buy their shirts/decals etc, blogs, lyrics websites and stuff which contains the words "unseen" and "terror" but that's it. Their Allmusic page only lists their discography. There are several pages which contain album reviews or interviews, but they are (unfortunately) blogs. I am surprised that this band slipped past the attention of notable media, since Napalm Death are clearly notable and like I said, Mitch's other side projects have reliable sources. Unseen Terror however, seems like a band that made no waves when they were active, and certainly not now. They have an article on five other wikis as well, but the sourcing is also problematic there. So I think this band is not notable.

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect? very thorough WP:BEFORE. WP:BAND, criterion 6, does say that there may be notability for "an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians": I wonder if that justifies redirecting (to a footnote?) at either Shane Embury or Mick Harris? Otherwise Delete, as per nom.Ingratis (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ingratis:: Yeah, a redirect is a good idea. This band can be mentioned in the articles of these musicians, but I don't think it deserves its stand-alone article.

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable via releases, Peel Sessions, notable members, and coverage, even if it isn't currently cited in the article. --Michig (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig:: I am sorry, but where's the coverage?

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as found additional book and web coverage such as this, this, and this, that can be used for referenced rewriting of the article so that it passes WP:GNG and WP:V, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306:: Well I don't know. The book did not open for me so I don't know about that. While MetalSucks is a reliable site, Unseen Terror is covered only in a few basic sentences as part of a list. And isn't Metal Underground a non-reliable source? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The book coverage is at least a page and could be more, Metal Underground is not listed as an unreliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, has a full staff and ten years or so history, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306:: Oh, ok then. I will add these sources to the article. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:48, 11 June 2020 (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.