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. Although the album articles have been deleted, the band maintains notability and meets the guidelines at WP:BAND per Anarchangel's links. The nominator did not advance his argument after being presented with these sources. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 01:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unter Null[edit]

Unter Null (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources given are either not independent, trivial, or not reliable. I was also unable to find any usable sources with the necessary claims myself. Also note that there is at least one article concerning an album of theirs which appears to have had equally insignificant (if not even less) coverage, Absolution (Unter Null album). It will either need to be CSDed per A9 if the result of this discussion is delete, or sent to afd if the result of this is keep for its own discussion. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 22:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fell free to delete the poorly covered articles (Absolution (Unter Null album), Sacrament (Unter Null album) and the Sick Fuck (Unter Null album)) - I created them for the sake of completion and had hoped for additional input for others but upon reflection they are not, really, notable enough and have very little coverage outside a select few websites of which themselves provide little information. Eva The Faun (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per author's comment above, I have nominated the albums for speedy deletion, per G7. I am waiting to hear back from him or her whether the statement was also intended to refer to the band's article itself, the subject of this particular discussion. If not, then the AFD here will ensue as planned. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 12:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization of the creator's good faith statement of non-opposition to deletion as a request for deletion seems non-intuitive to the point of being peremptory. Add to this the fact that the only article not mentioned, the one under discussion, is then assumed to be a potential candidate for G7 as well. There are links to four other albums in the article, even after the three were removed. Why would the creator think that the article about the band that created them should be removed, if the creator did not mention them in the list of lesser articles? Scanning the article for defects only finds defects. AFD would be a lot less work if nominators had their minds at least open to the possibility of virtues. They pat themselves on the back for being just another cog in the great machine of checks and balances that is WP, but as far as I am concerned, knee-jerk deletionists are just a bug that WP won't, not can't, fix. Anarchangel (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, thanks. See above. Anarchangel (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2011 (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.
More