Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krieg

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. NW (Talk) 00:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Krieg

Krieg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Currently doesn't meet criteria for inclusion. Has been unsourced since March 2008 and still doesn't meet WP:V. Lack of sourcing also causes problems when trying to prove it meets WP:BAND. Many thanks, Gazimoff 12:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Gazimoff 12:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The group has a biography at MusicMight ([1]) and has been covered a few times by Blabbermouth.net ([2], [3]). Coverage by major publications within the genre, along with the extensive connections the group has with other well-known groups in the genre, indicates it passes WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

  It's probably not worth referencing this per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, unless the article is updated to reflect it. If it is, I'm happy to withdraw but for now it remains completely unreferenced. Many thanks, Gazimoff 17:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  I didn't add a general link to Google Books or some such aggregator: I gave specific links to third-party sources. Chubbles (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  My comment about the article itself remains. Gazimoff 18:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  I think what Chubbles may be getting at, and what I was trying to say in the above Danyel Gérard nomination where I asked if you had done a WP:BEFORE check, is that under that guidance the onus is actually on the nom to "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, try to confirm that such sources don't exist." I think that the way you are approaching it is the opposite--as thought you don't have a WP:BEFORE obligation to check for sources, but can simply nom an article for AfD if the article itself doesn't reflect the sources--and then ask the respondents who are saying that there are in fact sources (the check you should have done) that it is their obligation to put them in the article. But its sort of the other way around--in the sense that it is actually the nom's obligation to look first for the sources before nominating the article. Make sense?--Epeefleche (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  I always check for sources before nominating something for delete, but if it's either not straightforward or clear if there are good quality or reliable sources, I almost always take it to AfD. Tagging doesn't help - the article has been tagged for failing WP:V for over a year. In fact, it still fails WP:V - it really grids my gears when people state that they have found sources but don't update the article and add them. The article gets tagged for lacking sources, and we all go round the AfD loop again. If you have found sources, add them to the article. Don't just trumpet them here as it doesn't solve the fundamental problem - we have a policy called WP:V and currently it fails it. Hope this makes sense. Gazimoff 09:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  AfD is not a route to force article improvement, and it grinds my gears when people use it that way. Being unverified is not the same as being unverifiable, but many treat them the same way. I guess the times, they are a-changin', and many regular editors seem to agree with that, but I think it does far more harm than good. Chubbles (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  Another option is to send an article to WP:INCUBATE. It's not an option that I myself have taken yet, but I have been thinking about. I haven't given this article a good enough looking over to make an assessment yet but have been planning to. J04n(talk page) 14:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  I understand where you're coming from, but there are two problems here. Tagging isn't the solution - editors or wikiprojects aren't doing cleanup drives to go through tagged articles and source them or delete them as appropriate. Leaving notes on Wikiproject talk pages isn't the solution either - I've done both in the past and again, they've either been ignored or archived. Not everyone is an expert in a particular field either - I'm good at finding sources on computing and telecoms related topics, but not so great at finding sources on scholars, historians and musicians. Unfortunately the only way to get peoples attention these days and highlight articles that have problems is to take them to AfD. I understand that it's annoying, but freuently it's the only way to get people to either fix the problem or remove it. I guess I do agree with you, times are indeed a'changin. Gazimoff 23:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  What Chubbles said. When I clicked on Google news and Google books for your Danyel Gérard AfD above, the refs came pouring out. The reason I posed my question is that it struck me that if you had done the same and spent three minutes culling through them, you would have seen notable sources, and not brought the AfD. I therefore wondered if you hadn't understood that that was what was required of an AfD nom. I now gather that maybe you're just seeing the sources, but think this is a cool/effective way to force Chubbles and others to put citations in articles that are lacking them. I agree that that's not what AfD is for.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  In a nutshell, deal with it. If tagging, talkpage notices and so on don't result in an article being improved, but AFD does, guess what happens. Don't like it? Then start actually responding to tagged articles, instead fo waiting till it comes to AfD then crying foul. If AfD ends up beign the only tool to ensure something gets fixed, don't be surprised if it becomes the default tool. You can bleat WP:BEFORE all you like, doesn't mean things get fixed. Gazimoff 18:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  Put simply, AFD is for articles about subjects that one does not believe belong in this encyclopedia. It's not for cleanup. WP:BEFORE fixes an awful lot of articles when its used, and prevents several other editors using up their time at AFD. Tagging articles does help in a lot of cases - I've fixed several articles on my watchlist that other editors have tagged. If a good faith attempt to find sources was made but didn't find any, fair enough, but please be clear about what AFD is for.--Michig (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  Then how comes this has been tagged for over a year without anyone coming in to look at it until now, eh? Gazimoff 23:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  It wasn't on my watchlist, presumably wasn't on the watchlist of any of the other editors who have improved it, and those with an inclination towards improving such articles have perhaps been too busy trying to prevent articles from being deleted at AFD.--Michig (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  • That's funny! Humor aside, Wikipedia:There is no deadline and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress bring up some good points in this regard, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Just enough coverage of the band found, and Krieg mainman Imperial went on to join the Metal supergroup Twilight.--Michig (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The above mentioned references; Blabbermouth and Music Might plus Sputnik and the Daily Herald have all been incorporated into the article which has been expanded and cleaned up. J04n(talk page) 02:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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.