Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At the Throne of Judgment (3rd 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. Sandstein 18:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the Throne of Judgment[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)

No indication of meeting WP:BAND notability guidelines. Little coverage on google searches. The references given are not significant coverage, just band listings and a press release about the initial breaking up of the band. noq (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment.~~ Weak keep. At first I thought it didn't meet WP:NMUSIC and I typed out a whole blurb about not being able to find any sources... then I re-read the article. "they were signed by Oregon record label Rise Records in November 2006." Well Rise Records is a subsidiary of BMG, which is definitely a major label, therefore passes WP:NMUSIC #5 (signed to major label). At the same time, I'm not really sure this is enough to keep this article, for there's really no reliable sources for this article... other than Allmusic and two sentences from metalarchives. Would like to hear from other people's opinions on this one.Awsomaw (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But is a subsidiary of a Major label automatically significant? Typically the major label's only connection is ownership. Sometimes a label is something that is acquired in a larger purchase of an umbrella parent company. Shouldn't the label's significance be assessed per its own merits rather than by who owns it? Have there been previous discussions/consensus on this? ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm not really sure myself, I just assumed that subsidiaries of major labels world count, since there's so many artists that fall under that branch. I may be wrong though, maybe someone more knowledgeable on these rules could inform me.Awsomaw (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rise records was bought by BMG in 2015 - well after the band signed and subsequently broke up. So was Rise records a major label at the time? noq (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even if it isn’t a major label at the time, WP:MUSIC also accepts “one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).” Rise Records definitely has a lot of history; and their lineup is incredibly strong; I know quite a few bands on their list from my emo phase; and all of them have wiki articles and are notable in their own right, charting on billboard and participating in large festivals.Awsomaw (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since Rise Records has had more than a decade of history by the time they signed the band, and the fact that many bands on their roster at the time were notable, I will change to weak keep. Awsomaw (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading #5 of WP:NMUSIC, the rule only applies if they released 2 albums on the label. They only released 1 album on the label, therefore, I don't think the rule applies. I'll still keep it as Weak keep because of the reason provided by Michig. Awsomaw (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Allmusic biography and album review, PopMatters review, and two pieces on the album from Alternative Press ([1], [2]), and probably sufficient to support a short article, and there's likely additional coverage in print sources. --Michig (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 3 December 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.