- 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. Article sources are improved. Pigman☿ 05:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Metal Forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Apparently non-notable music publication. No evidence of notability in the article. Only source is its own Myspace page. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per CSD A7 BoL (Talk) 04:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the article does assert notability for the publication; so it's not a speedy candidate under CSD A7. The problem is that there are no citations from reliable sources, and two search engines turn up nothing online - not surprising since the magazine existed only before the onset of the Internet. If someone with a few issues and clippings covering the magazine comes forward, it will have to be an unfortunate deletion.
Delete unless/until someone comes forward with the pre-Internet sources.B.Wind (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A search of google news archives, here, didn't disclose a lot, but enough to convince me that this fanzine was notable. It is referenced in a number of articles as contributing to the early success of later notable bands and evidently had enough pull in the industry to ship musicians internationally to perform in festivals. (That's found in "Metal bands of 5 countries plan to let it all hang out", Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Jul 26, 1991.) I'm adding what seems appropriate to the article, but it's challenging because these are subscription only sources, and I'm not subscribing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm combing through a standard google search now, and the deeper I go, the more convinced I am of the notability of this magazine. Please note that it has changed significantly since its nomination, here. I'm still adding some of what I find, though a lot is not usable (bare mentions of interviews of famous bands/individuals, for instance). Although this is one of the most notable examples, I find a number of instance likes this where Salon gives a "shout out" to the magazine here and credits them as being among the factors that contributed to the popularization of Metallica. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 16:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Metal Forces was definitely a notable magazine in the 1980's for its coverage of the underground heavy metal scene and in many ways was more significant than Kerrang! for its coverage of new and upcoming bands. The magazine was also at the forefront in the promotion of thrash metal, and many bands from that era owe their early success to Metal Forces. For us readers, growing up, it really was the "bible". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.153.15 (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has been updated with additional citations. It has a way to go, but enough has been added to meet notability requirements. Keep. B.Wind (talk) 04:50, 20 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.