Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venomous (album)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Venomous (album)

[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:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article currently has dedicated album reviews for a number of publications. I’m not familiar with many, but at the very least Rolling Stone and Metal Hammer are pretty mainstream publications and reliable per WP:RSMUSIC. We generally have similar thoughts on album notability, so I was a bit surprised to see that the nomination doesn’t really address this at all...? Sergecross73 msg me 03:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sergecross73: I saw them as well. The Rolling Stone review is from rollingstone.co.id and does not appear to be the Rolling Stone which is rollingstone.com. A search for Venomous Burgerkill site:rollingstone.com returned nothing. The Metal Hammer is 404 and I assumed the same. I just looked and found it at https://www.loudersound.com/reviews/burgerkill-adamantine-album-review. One review from a RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rolling Stone Indonesia does appear to be a valid licensed version of Rolling Stone... or at least it was until January 2018: [1]. Richard3120 (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Are you suggesting it has two RSes then? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my opinion, yes. I'm also trying to find out more about Heavy Mag as well, which may or may not be an RS. The other sources definitely fail RS, though. Richard3120 (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was on the fence about Heavy as well. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources from Louder Sound and the defunct Rolling Stone Indonesia are reliable. I found some more reliable sources which talk about the album: Berita Satu, LPM Journal, Okezone, Metal as F, KapanLagi, Gigsplay and Metal Forge. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I’m still on the fence about notability, none of those sources are persuasive to me at all. They all very much so look like low level amateur bloggers, not reliable sources in the Wikipedia sense of the term. If the article is kept, it’d be more due to Rolling Stone, Louder, and Heavy, not these... Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 15 July 2020 (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.