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 Sahg. Discarding the "keep" votes which aren't policy-based. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 21:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Born Demon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Album that fails WP:NALBUM UtherSRG (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think it's a good article about an album that represents doom metal. Usually these albums do not chart or are as notable as pop music. ? User:Chavitico (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Chavitico (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

  Usually, albums that don't meet WP:NALBUM, such as this one, are WP:BLARed towards the article about the performer. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ...And no, the claim that "Usually these albums do not chart or are as notable as pop music." is misleading as any pop music album article should be WP:BLARed or deleted if it has similar notability issues as this article. WP:NALBUM doesn't discriminate by genre. Steel1943 (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Well, I'd give the article a chance. If it were that extreme, then all of this band's albums would have to be deleted because "they're not noteworthy or they don't chart." It's an underground Norwegian band, it has a small audience but it exists! This album is a sample of his work, obviously. --Apega71 (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITEXISTS. Richard3120 (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like WP:BEANS to me, in addition to wondering if the band's article Sahg should be investigated per WP:NBAND. Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    From my understanding though, the band's article would probably pass WP:NBAND since the band includes/included notable members who are notable for other ventures. Steel1943 (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sahg per WP:NALBUM as a {{R from album}}. Nothing proven this far shows this subject to be notable. Wikipedia isn't the doom metal or Sahg Fandom/Wikia site: Notability requirements here are for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sahg - per myself, Sam_Sailor and Onel5969 - all of whom have previously redirected the article as an alternative to deletion. Alternatively, given the quality of the Sahg article and its current clear failure of WP:GNG, I'd delete the lot. BTW, the concept that "the band includes/included notable members who are notable for other ventures" is specifically dealt with in guidelines - notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding Sahg, WP:NBAND point 6 seems to contradict the WP:NOTINHERITED claim, so I'd imagine there's room for debate there. Either way though, I do agree that it would be difficult to present a case to rationalize the existence of an article about a band with no notable songs or albums, regardless who is in the band. Steel1943 (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that the band article would probably just about pass notability – they appear to have been mentioned in various Norwegian newspapers, although as they are all behind a paywall I can't tell if they are just passing mentions. And their albums have certainly been reviewed in at least one established European metal magazine: [1], [2], [3]. But that's another debate. As for this particular album, I'm holding off on a decision as it's been out less than a week and there is still time for reviews and other articles about it to be published. Richard3120 (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I totally agree with this great opinion. It is an album of a relatively remarkable band (at least in Norway) and all their albums appear in specialized metal music publications. I hold my position, article deserves the opportunity to be preserved. User: Chavitico (Talk) 17:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Excuse me User talk:Richard3120 for that opinion (and for purposes of debate and consensus) do you say that the article deserves to be left (kkeep)?--Apega71 (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, WP:NOTAVOTE. That, and I don't know how their opinion could be construed in any way other than a "neutral". Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In addition, it's odd how two editors just made the same mistake with linking a user name. Steel1943 (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Apega71: categorically, no. See WP:NALBUM – "That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." The fact that I think the band may pass WP:NBAND does not mean that this album is automatically notable, we need multiple reliable sources about the album itself. Richard3120 (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this is quite an interesting debate and thank you for being a part of it. I stand by my position that both Sahg and this álbum Born Demon are of interest for the reasons stated above. Especially the band, it is notable for some members who have made headlines in Norway for their musical work. So it would be unfortunate to redirect (and thus disappear, as it seems to be) this new album. But it is the decision of the majority in the end.--Apega71 (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It is unclear what "of interest" refers to. Sahg consists of members who are apparently notable for other works, so the existence of that article is debatable, but per WP:NALBUM, WP:GNG, etc., it seems quite clear that Born Demon existing as an article in an encyclopedia is not plausible due to not meeting the established notability guidelines. Also, if you intended to address or rebuke any of the "redirect to Sahg" comments above, you did not; all you did was state your point of view without enforcing reasons why your point of view is compatible with Wikipedia permitting Born Demon existing in its current state per Wikipedia's established guidelines. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, see WP:NOTAVOTE; consensus is determined by the weight of the arguments, not a majority of the vote. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What happens is that before the application of the rules of notability of an article in Wikipedia, there are not many arguments to debate. I would suggest the creator of this article include it as part of a section of the main Sahg band article.--Apega71 (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sahg. Except for a one-paragraph, debatably SIGCOV review from Decibel, which is RS per WP:A/S, the rest is a combination of poor Wordpress blogs or non-SIGCOV routine announcements (including the band's own official non-SIGCOV, non-independent announcement). My WP:BEFORE search found no more refs plausibly contributing to notability. Therefore, this fails WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM and should be redirected. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sahg. Fails WP:NALBUM per above arguments. A notable band does not make this album notable. SBKSPP (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2022 (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.