Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consortium Project

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consortium Project[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)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. There are a few reviews in metal webzines, but overall a lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Unsourced, no other indications of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The amount of reviews is really impressive. As the nominator implies but fails to conclude, meets WP:MUSICBIO via WP:NMUSICOTHER #1. The claim that something should be deleted, just because it is currently unsourced, conflicts with WP:NEXIST, among others. gidonb (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Good thing I didn't claim that, then. Neither is "an impressive amount of reviews exists" a reason to keep, especially if those reviews are from poor quality unreliable sources. Would you care to provide WP:THREE sources and explain why they qualify as WP:RS? Lennart97 (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See sources below. This nomination is an obvious before failure. gidonb (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep. When WP:BEFOREing for reviews for just one of their albums, IV, the best would probably be Metal.de, DPRP (print), Music Street Journal (print), Metal Rules, Powermetal.de, and the hits also include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] (scroll down a bit), [7], [8], [9], [10]. It seems the band crosses over between the metal and prog rock scenes. Blabbermouth found it worthy of coverage, though may stem from a press release. That being said, the frontman would be a possible merge target if he had an article. He has a small Allmusic bio, which is a good start. Geschichte (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- THREE would be useful because an indiscriminate list of webzine album reviews is not necessarily an indication of notability; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subhuman (Italian band) for a similar case nevertheless closed as delete. I have yet to find one review from the list above for which I'm able to verify the reviewer's credentials, if the reviewer is named at all. At least one site (SeaOfTranquility) is explicitly listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources as a generally unreliable source; another review (on El Portal del Metal) is clearly user generated as opposed to written by a staff member. Lennart97 (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2022 (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.