Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illdisposed

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. - Philippe 23:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illdisposed

Does not assert notability. It fails criterion A7 and therefore may qualify for a speedy deltion (not sure). The articls is also a total mess with only a discoraphy (that has no links to actual albums) and the line-up. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search turns up one link, not notable. Plus there is a ton of redlinks, showing that none of their work is notable either. Atyndall93 | talk 02:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a professional review at allmusic.com. (I've added a link in the article). They were also signed to Roadrunner Records, a subsidiary of Warner. Comment: the article being a "total mess" and having red links is certainly not a deletion reason. Also, I'm getting many thousands of ghits. --Fabrictramp (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article now has links to several articles about Illdisposed from significant publications. --Peter Andersen (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - What? No it doesn't. Metal-archives, myspace and their own official site are hardly "significant". You're either lying, joking are don't know what you're saying. The article now has one reference of a review. Hardly and improvement. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At time the article had links to both allmusic.com and jp.dk. Both are reliable publications and that should be enough to establish notability. ~~Maybe you are in fact the one who does not know what he is saying!~~ --Peter Andersen (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we keep the discussion a bit more civil? Thanks!--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eduardo Rivadavia of All Music Guide describes them as "one of Denmark's most respected and longest lasting death metal bands" here. That alone seems pretty notable to me. They have gotten plenty of coverage elsewhere, for instance here, here, here here and here. Easily qualifies per criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC: multiple non-trivial mention in independent publications. They have also released two albums on Roadrunner Records which also means they qualify through criteria 5: two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). If an article does not assert notability, it should be tagged with {{notability}} instead of being nominated for deletion. The two albums on Roadrunner seems to be a sufficient assertion of notability to me though. --Bardin (talk) 07:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep True, the article could definitely use improvement, so why not assist in that effort instead of nominating for deletion? Notability does not appear to be an issue at all. Jackmantas (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Well first to Jackmantas, I didn't know it was so notable then, it only had one intro sentence and sources that were not reliable. Since then more has been added, though. To Bardin: Those sites you cited don't seem reliable (some of them are just reviews, which don't mean anything) but at the same time I'm hesitant to disagree with you as you have garnered my respect and seem like a great editor and seem like you usually know what you're saying. Well at any rate it doesn't seem like this article will be deleted, but it does need serious improvement. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing inherently wrong with reviews as long as it's not anonymous user submitted stuff like what we find on the metal archives. Allmusic.com, Lordsofmetal.nl, etc. are websites that feature professional reviews so they are fine. I've taken a look at the version of the article when you nominated it for deletion and you're right that it only had one intro sentence and unreliable sources. Still, when there's a photo of the band performing at a big festival like the Summer Breeze Open Air, an infobox stating that they've been around since 1991 and a discography that includes eight studio albums, two compilations and one dvd, I would personally lean towards the assumption that the band is notable for inclusion on wikipedia. A more appropriate action in my view would be to just tag the article with some other templates such as {{notability}} and {{expand}}. You can still withdraw this nomination if you now agree that the band is notable enough. Thanks for the vote of confidence, btw. --Bardin (talk) 06:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I did, after all, give you the first barnstars I've ever given out. Errr, I'm loath to admit it, but I don't know how to withdraw my nomination. But I now would if I knew how. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:38, 21 April 2008 (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.