Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Red Throne (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Ignoring the canvassed, explanation-free votes, consensus is for deletion.‎ Owen× ☎ 20:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Red Throne[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Blood Red Throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the general and band-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Wasn't gonna renominate so soon since I'm told that's inappropriate, but as I said in the last AfD which I started, I found much too little evidence of notability to be convinced this should stay. Why it was even restored after soft deletion I'm unsure; no new coverage was presented that would've given it any more hope. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This band has not only been around since 1998, but has featured at least two (former) members of notable bands (Emperor's ex-Tchort and ex-Satyricon's Daniel "Død" Olaisen). UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Comment - This nomination was made just three days after a soft deletion due to minimal participation, and the article's creator apparently requested its reinstatement. I question the strategy of such a fast re-nomination as if something different will happen if you keep pounding away at it. I once did something similar and got yelled at by two different Admins for a procedural violation, with one actually threatening to ban me from AfD discussions. I have observed the current nominator practicing this same process several times in the past few weeks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 01:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - Keep, or merge to Tchort, Bernt Moen or Erlend Caspersen. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jax 0677 haven't you been told before not to vote like this? Keeping and merging are two different outcomes and you need to pick just one. You offered three different targets and you need to pick just one. It's clear you do this just because you don't want deletion or redirection to be the outcome of any AfD, but you never offer anything useful to any specific AfD when you do that. It's a waste of a comment and you really need to stop doing it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From personal experience, I concur with the above comment. Also, merging a band article to one of the members, over the others, violates policy when those members are of equal notability themselves. Being an inclusionist at the high level is okay but it still needs to be adequately justified in each specific discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I don't think that it is a big deal if I vote "Keep or merge". It is similar to voting "Keep", but saying that "If the article cannot be kept, that it should be merged". The article should be merged to the most notable member of the band. If they are all equally notable, then as BrownHairedGirl once said, flip a coin to determine to which member the band name should be redirected. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Now that I think about it, Ronny Thorsen is probably the best redirect target. None of the current members have Wikipedia pages, and Thorsen is the lead singer. I think we should vote on who is the best redirect target. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (without prejudice) - My comments above are about procedural violations in the nomination and previous votes, though I have not yet voted myself. The band's situation is not quite as dire as the nominators in the two AfDs have implied. They have a brief biography at AllMusic ([1]) though it doesn't really tell us much, and they have a few occasional album reviews and genre mag interviews (e.g [2], [3]). Overall, they're kind of close to notability but I will have to cite the significant coverage rule in concluding that the coverage just doesn't add up to encyclopedic standards. However, if someone finds anything useful I would not oppose reviving the article in the future. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another Procedural Comment - I fear that this AfD is destined for an unsatisfactory "no consensus" - if an Admin simply counts votes. Instead, I implore the closing Admin to inspect the quality of the votes, because the "keep" votes above (edit: and below) violate various provisions of WP:ATA. I also recommend that someone with authority discuss re-nomination procedures with this AfD's nominator. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:25, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Less meta, more sourcing and notability discussion please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 11:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can only echo Star Mississippi's comment. Also, Keep even if there is not evidence of notability for this band is one of the most inexplicable comments I've seen at an AFD. Notability is generally the basis of a Keep argument. It doesn't help that only an editor advocating Delete is discussing the available sources which are typically the territory for those arguing Keep. Finally, closer's don't like to decide Merge/Redirect target articles by flipping a coin. That just increases the possibility of a Deletion review and being accused of casting a "supervote".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for redirect/merge target[edit]

  • Comment - I propose voting for the best redirect target. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no viable argument presented for redirecting at all, much less to whom. That is not automatically the decision when there is disagreement over keeping or deleting. Meanwhile, recall that this whole mess started because the nominator disagreed with a WP:REFUND after a previous soft deletion. Everything going on here is the result of conflicting policies. Good luck to the Admins who get stuck with this dog; consider discussing conflicting policies among yourselves instead of complaining about the resulting messy votes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I disagree that "There has been no viable argument presented for redirecting". Thorsen is the lead singer, therefore, unless a good argument is made for a different band member, the history should be kept in tact by redirecting to him, or some other member of the band. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus above to redirect. In fact, not one single vote above is to redirect, not even your vote which was a nonsensical "keep or merge". This voting scheme of yours assumes by fiat that the Admins will decide to redirect, making the vote bogus by design. There are two policy based votes to delete above, plus the nomination, and all other votes at least partially violate WP:ATA. The Admins will probably give up and declare "no consensus" anyway. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To be perfectly clear, I am open to either merge or redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Erlend Caspersen[edit]
Bernt Moen[edit]
Tchort[edit]
Ronny Thorsen[edit]
  1. Green checkmarkY Approve --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Tes, that was my fault to say Merge/Redirect because they often get combined in opinions but there was only some support for a Merge, not Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am also open to a redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Doomsdayer520, they are kind of almost notable, but I don't think they cross the line under WP:NBAND under any criterion. Looking particularly at criterion 1, there is a book referenced on the page (McIver, 2005) which mentiones them on pages 41, 50 and 87. The mentions are brief and the main mention is on page 41, a short bio amounting to one good paragraph. The Allmusic bio is similarly short, and per WP:ALLMUSIC, there is no consensus on the source reliability, although past discussions tend to suggest SIGCOV may be supported by staff writer reviews there. However, this is not a review. Other sources are similarly problematic and self published sources shouldn't really be on the page. I don't believe this crosses the line, and although singers may be independently notable, notability is not inherited. Thus, I think this one is a delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Why does this preclude a redirect or merge? --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Because no appropriate merge target or redirect target has been identified. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jax0677 has not identified a policy that supports merging or redirecting, and any such policy must also come with a viable argument about how it overcomes other policies that the rest of us (legitimate) voters have discussed specifically, such as WP:SIGCOV or WP:NBAND. This is a common pattern with that editor, which itself violates yet another policy at WP:JUSTVOTE. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:POFR says "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article). --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for a viable discussion on how WP:POFR is more important than the other policies already discussed, especially since that policy is almost entirely about pages with tricky titles and this AfD is about the completely different matter of whether a band is notable. Meanwhile, resorting to WP:IAR is disrespectful of the WP:CONSENSUS process. See also WP:JUSTAPOLICY. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Protection note, tired of playing whack a sock so I have semi'ed for a week. I did relist but don't think this is controversial as any autoconfirmed editor remains eligible to participate, and the Talk is available to any legit newbies. Admins, feel free to revert if needed. Star Mississippi 14:13, 8 November 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Blood_Red_Throne_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1186344775"