Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dawn of the Black Hearts

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 per consensus. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 23:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Dawn of the Black Hearts

[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)

Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree. Also this is a bootleg album and bootlegs don't make valid Wiki articles. The only reason the band considered this album one of their own and this article was even here at all was because of its cover art that's nothing but a disturbingly offensive copyright violation. With that, it's time for this page to really be gone for good....SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no distinct rule about bootlegs being ineligible for articles. See WP:UNRELEASED which says that an unreleased album (including a bootleg) can be notable if it has received reliable media coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covered in sources and "is perhaps the most bootlegged black metal release of all time". Pikavoom ^Talk 07:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article can be improved with better sources from the world of books, and it looks like there are few sources only if you do a standard Internet search. Do a Google Books search and you will find the album discussed extensively in many music history books, such as [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], among others. It got coverage largely for its cover featuring a real dead body (that's why the WP infobox has no image), but it's still coverage, and the album is considered an important entry in early black metal. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing those sources, I've integrated them into the article as well as some of my own that I found. LaunchOctopus (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note - Back in 2008, this album survived a previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn of the Black Hearts, when the title of the article was slightly different (a "The" was missing). That is probably why the notice about multiple AfDs does not appear here. Admittedly, notability rules were more lenient back then. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. What if we just merge with the band's article? Then we can have good info and reliable sources about this bootleg album without necessarily making it have its own article. Would that be a good compromise?SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the months-old merge proposal on the talk page didn't produce any comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When there are two articles and each is functional on its own, merging them requires a well-reasoned rationale; see WP:MERGEREASON and the associated WP:NOTMERGE. A proposal to merge is not a "compromise" just because you disagree with where this discussion is going. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added several more sources, and this is a notable release in the subgenre and historical scene. LaunchOctopus (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:NMUSIC not meeting the criteria does not mean the article must be deleted. I agree that the guidelines in this case are only borderline due to the coverage being trivial and not meeting standard notability guidelines. However I do not see sufficient reason in this particular example to warrant deletion of the article. This is a rare case of me applying WP:IGNORE - I think deleting this article does not improve Wikipedia and so the official guidelines should be ignored. The sources are trivial, however there is enough of them that I am satisfied this article has cause to remain. Such-change47 (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2022 (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.