Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burzum (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. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 04:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burzum (album)

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

searched and can't be established as Wikipedia-notable Lachlan Foley (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This album is old and less likely to have a lot of modern online references. However a slightly more active search will find that this album has been mentioned in many books as a heavy influence on Scandinavian metal culture and heavily analyzed by people concerned about the lyrics (satanism, violence, etc.) Discussed in historical tomes like Lords of Chaos (1998) and Sound of the Beast (2004). Click on the "Books" search link above. What this article really needs is more work, not deletion. Also, the Black Metal Project has classified the album as "High" importance indicating that it is influential for those in the know. (This final point is not a real reason to keep or delete, but worth discussing regardless.) --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Doomsdayer. This is the first album by the hugely influential black metal artist Burzum. It's also one of the first Norwegian black metal albums. For someone who knows nothing about black metal, it shouldn't take much serching to find-out how noteworthy the album is. Furthermore, I don't understand why you'd put this up for deletion but not the other Burzum albums. ~Asarlaí 15:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did the nom not bother to search outside the English language? And did they fail to notice the raft of inter-wiki links towards the bottom-left of the page? Click on the one for the German article. The one that has a Good Article icon. 34 sources there. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 17:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its shear impact can be asserted to it having articles in 18 languages. The article is GA in German Wikipedia, where it has 34 references, most, if not all, seem to be highly reliable and combined clearly establish notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The solution might be to translate German WP's Good Article to here, or at least bring over some of the plentiful references. If (when) the article here survives this AfD process, I can contribute to the effort. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – notable topic; there are printed and/or German sources that discuss the album. Also, seeing as how the German article is thorough, comprehensive and a good article, there's no reason its English counterpart should not be kept either. A proper translation to the English Wikipedia is welcome, from a reliable translator. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 23:08, 15 September 2012 (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.