Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Ceneri Di Heliodoro

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 keep. Reliable, independent sources have been found, demonstrating GNG is met. However, it appears that many unreliable sources are in the article, and should be removed (as should any information relying soly on these unreliable sources). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Le Ceneri Di Heliodoro

[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 notability. Source doesn't meet with WP:GNG and WP:NM#Albums. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 12:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 12:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ➤ Tajwar – thesupermaN!^{【Click to Discuss】} 12:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The article's creator removed the AfD notice; it has been restored. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rome (band). This act seems to get inconsistent media notice. Some of its more recent albums got some reviews in genre publications, but for this album I can find nothing but this fairly softball interview: [1]. Not enough for a standalone article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article have 3 references --- Slagmannen924 16:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Found two more interviews about the album, one in German[2] and one in English[3]. --- Slagmannen924 16:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think Bardo Methodology will be acceptable – it looks like one man's private website. Metal.info is better, but it's a an interview with the artist talking about his own record, so it's not an independent and unbiased opinion. Richard3120 (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The article have now 6 references --- Slagmannen924 17:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The number of references is irrelevant, it's whether any of those references are from reliable independent sources, and at the moment, I'm not convinced that any of them are. Richard3120 (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 2 to 5 are reliable. YouTube and Discogs are considered primary sources. I also found some reliable sources which talk about the album: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG per Astig; although I will note that terrarelicta.com, albumoftheyear.org, and auralaggravation.com are all unreliable sources as some are self published blogs and others are on websites where anyone can post a review and are therefore potentially not independent/reliable. However, the reviews in scenepointblank.com, laut.de, and theaquarian.com provided by Astig are all respectable sources with editorial oversight and those are independent reviews of quality. I agree that refs 2 and 5 in the article are also reliable RS.4meter4 (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2021 (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.