Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amazing Atomic Activity

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 redirect to Acid Drinkers. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Atomic Activity

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

No evidence of encyclopedic notability. Subject appears to fail WP:NALBUM. Cited sources are trivial. A Google did not yield anything that rings the notability bell. PROD was removed by article author. Subsequent discussion on the author's talk page did not alleviate my concerns about notability. However it is possible that additional sources may exist in Polish. I am open to reconsideration if enough RS coverage can be found. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What other sources do you want? The sources include AllMusic, their own website, Spirit of Metal and Metal-Archives. If the band has its own article on Wikipedia, then shouldn't albums as well? I don't understand. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added two Polish magazine articles on the album (and one includes a review). Now the article will not be deleted. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. And no, notability is not inherited. Just because a band is notable doesn't mean all of it's works are. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources appear to consist of music listing services with dubious journalistic oversight. No notability. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Right now the sourcing on the article is mediocre at best. Obviously the metal-archives reference will have to go (nowhere near a reliable source; see WP:ALBUM/SOURCES). The Spirit of Metal reference also looks rather dubious; I wouldn't use it myself. As I don't speak Polish, I have no opinion on those two sites; can they be shown to pass WP:RS? The Allmusic reference doesn't have a review, which is usually needed to include it as a reference. Really, I'm not seeing anything here establishing the album's notability. I suggested to User:TheSickBehemoth that they take a look through WP:ALBUM/SOURCES and try to find more that actually establish the album's notability. I would ask any potential closing admin to give this user a couple of days to do this before closing and deleting/keeping. However, if nothing can be found in a reasonable amount of time, I would agree with deleting it (and maybe moving it to TSB's userspace to be worked on there). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the nom I have no objection to relisting the AfD for a week if the article creator would like a little time to work on it. I also have no objection to userfying the article if there is legitimate reason to believe there might be some RS sources, perhaps in Polish that just aren't popping up right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Merge to the band page per WP:ALBUM in its current form. Never charted, no significant journalistic coverage. No need to crystal ball this. Delete it and if the coverage improves, the article will be recreated. But as it stands not worth its own article. SPACKlick (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2014 (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.