Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Dead

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 May 9.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 September 13.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. v/r - T P 13:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common Dead

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

The whole page went through WP:AFC, sadly that one reviewer accepted the page as it was. After I cleaned up the page, I noticed that there are no real independent third part references talking about that music group with the exception of one small review of one album. mabdul 15:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Unfortunately, this should not have been passed through AfC. Topher385 (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mabdul is completely wrong. "No real independent third party references talking about that music group with the exception of one small review of one album"? The citations blatantly prove otherwise. There are two separate reviews from two separate legitimate third party sources, unbiased and uninfluenced from the band, for one album in particular, and then an entirely separate review for a second, additional release that you apparently failed to see. Numerous credible third party citations are obvious for other press, containing reviews of albums, interviews, and activity updates, that the band did not do itself, which have been posted on the following reputable and followed websites: Metal Buzz, The Gauntlet, Metal-Rules.com, Metal Forge, and Jam Magazine Online. Additionally, directory posting in Billboard Music Guide, the Metal Archives, and Spirit of Metal have all been provided. This band has also already had a Wikipedia page on the Spanish version of the site, started by another listener, I was merely taking it upon myself as a metal fan to translate an English addition.

This does in fact meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines and Wikipedia regulars unfamiliar with more obscure yet documented acts in metal should not let their bias or unfamiliarity with the content influence snap judgments like this deletion suggestion. I've dealt with this exact situation with countless music pages.

Also, just added yet another review source, this time a scathing review from The Gauntlet, on a single released by the band. 96.22.223.106 (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE deleting this article is ridiculous. as for the claim of there being only one album and review (which is wrong), The Sex Pistols only ever had one album, so that's really a moot point. since when did the body of work in terms of numbers ever matter?? this artist has plenty of coverage from all over and i myself added another reference. also, there is clearly another album out and another on the way, making it clear that if this article is deleted it is only a matter of time until it's back up. deleting this band from wikipedia is pointless. it's a legit band/artist. i also saw this guy myself in north montreal shred it up during the same weekend of Heavy MTL fest and it was kickass.

honestly sometimes, you wikipedians behave closer to trolls more than anything else. 70.30.239.100 (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It I saw the deletion debate header on the article and almost laughed. This site has gotten so fascist lately with the new articles. I vote "keep". Albeit a new band, there are already more journalist and forum outlets I've found on Bing talking about this band than I expected and apparently it is still well and active on new material. Therefore I agree @user above on the remark about the inevitable re-submission of this subject in the future, so Common Dead's deletion is not worth it. Consider these accepted articles with even less 3rd party ref's than Common Dead at the moment: Toxic Holocaust, Genghis Tron, Exit-13. 66.131.199.156 (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:music - Off2riorob (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:music as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It According to WP:music: " A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. "

Not sure where the "fails WP:Music" has any credibility because the artist meets this statute. 66.131.199.156 (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2011 (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.