Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter's Bane

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. Been up 4 weeks and there's hardly been any discussion so relisting for a 4th time would be pointless and a waste of time, Consensus is to Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winter's Bane[edit]

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

Currently this is questionably notable and improvable as both English and Polish Wiki have a few links but this hardly seems enough for a better article and the best my searches found was only this (basically a few passing mentions, hardly in-depth), this second one is actually simply a Wiki mirror and lastly these links. At best, in the case this is better known through Tim Owens, this article can simply be redirected to his. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the original writer of the article, but here's some multiple nontrivial published works that are (usually considered) reliable regarding this band: http://www.metalstorm.net/pub/review.php?review_id=3182 for an album review, http://www.allmusic.com/artist/winters-bane-mn0001820872 for a biography, as well as Garry Sharpe-Young's A-Z of Power Metal (which I don't have on me at the moment so I can't verify the page, but they were for sure given a biography in that book). EDIT: Page 486 according to the reference I previously added on List of power metal bands. Is it satisfactory to introduce these references to the article in order to indicate notability? Vortiene (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vortiene: There has been extensive discussion about whether Allmusic.com is a reliable source. As Liz said here: it depends. Band clasiifications and other metadata at Allmusic.com are user sourced and are deemed unreliable. Individual reviews depend upon the reliability of the particular reviewer. Although it has only appeared on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard twice, the consensus seems to be the same, band classifications are suspect and individual reviews depend upon the reliability of the particular reviewer. A-Z of Power Metal has not been discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but it is always a good idea to have a source in front of you when citing it. WP:SAYWHERE says: Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself. --Bejnar (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I own this book, and there is a section regarding winter's bane on page 486. I usually only use allmusic as a source for band biographies, in which power metal bios are typically written by Eduardo rivadavia, who seems to be referenced often. Metal storm is a database/review site with editors who look over reviews written by their authors. There are reviews written by users, but these are marked as guest reviews. The one linked is not marked as a guest review and hence written by a member of staff and reviewed by an editor. Vortiene (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep No argument for deletion (i.e., the use of admin tools). Unscintillating (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would appreciate if this were relisted a third time as there hasn't been a clear consensus yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Reasonable coverage already identified. More coverage shows up in GBooks. --Michig (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Making way for more discussion per nominator request. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:20, 1 January 2016 (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.