Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burning the Masses

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burning the Masses[edit]

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

non notable band. only one source on the whole page, and also it’s a A7 Redundant article because they already have a place on metal archives which is more comprehensively put together. Googling their band name also doesn't turn up any significant media coverage. Second Skin (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In this and another recent nomination, it appears that User:Second Skin is citing guideline #A7 incorrectly. That guideline does not contain the term "redundant" but does mention that certain types of articles can be "speedy deleted" if they make no claim of notability. Also, already having an article at a different website is irrelevant. The most relevant guideline to discuss in this type of nomination is WP:NBAND and associated guidelines. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that it was a criteria solely for "speedy deletions", but as a guideline for anything regarding non-notable music articles. Forgive me Second Skin (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - One of their albums has a fairly substantial review at AllMusic ([1]]), and they have been covered at the reasonably reliable No Clean Singing webzine ([2], [3]). Other voters may find this to be enough for a basic stub article, but I am concerned about their lack of coverage elsewhere beyond basic song listings at MP3/streaming sites and social media posts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Webzines aren't noteworthy sources. Allmusic is notable, but that's a single review and not even a source from a noteworthy publication like Deceible or MetalSucks like most of the more noteworthy bands like this garner. Second Skin (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant, independent reliable sources. The label they are affiliated with does not seem significant despite having a wiki page. In fact, it may be a good candidate for AfD. Note the discussion above re: AllMusic as reliable source. This particular review is user submitted, a feature on the site that allows members to log in and leave a review. (exact verbiage from ([4]]) when you click the "+" icon reads: "Sign up or Log In to your AllMusic Account to write a review." ) Perhaps a different discussion needs to be had elsewhere regarding AllMusic's unfortunate, regressive slide into more and more non-notable, user submitted content. But, at the very least, absent a valid AllMusic entry, there is nothing I could find that establishes this subject meeting wikipedia notability. As mentioned above, webzines and blogs--no matter how reliable some information may be therein--can not be used to established notability because of lack of verifiable editorial oversight. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:31, 13 June 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.