Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equations of Eternity

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 delete. Sandstein 22:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Equations of Eternity

[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 notable GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-notable band by Soul Crusher. You might ask me "wait, how is this non-notable, they have three notable members, good sourcing, there's nothing wrong here". Well, let me tell you the truth. The members are notable alright - so this article can be included in any of their articles. The sourcing is not that great. While the two Allmusic album reviews are written by staff, they are really short, and I don't count really short album reviews as reliable. Sonic Boom doesn't look reliable, and discogs is not a reliable source at all. During a google search I only found the standard unreliable sources. In my opinion, this project is not notable on its own, but it can stay as a redirect to any of the members' articles. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination is essentially a merge proposal with no specific target specified, so this should probably be speedily closed. The project/group satisfies WP:NMUSIC. A discussion on merging should take place on the article's talk page. --Michig (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the specific targets are the three members (actually, any of them). That should do it. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not for merge proposals, even vague ones. --Michig (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and mention on the three individual biographies. No suitable redirect target. Geschichte (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of whether this looks like a merge proposal, the group in question generated no reliable media coverage in order to achieve notability in its own right, independent from its notable members. The group can be listed briefly as a side project at each of their articles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Setreis (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Geschichte, Doomsdayer and Setreis! That's what I was talking about! They haven't achieved reliable media coverage! Like I said, the Allmusic reviews are really short but at least they are written by staff and they're okay for a start, and that's it! These are the sole reliable sources! The rest of them does not cut it! Discogs, sonicboom and such are not RS! And I haven't found anything besides the Allmusic ones, that establish notability. This can live on as a section in the members' articles, and that's about it. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the project is already mentioned in the articles on the three members – not notable enough for a stand-alone page per WP:BAND and WP:NMUSICOTHER – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2021 (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.