Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metal Injection (3rd nomination)

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 21:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Injection

[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)

The new sources that were added after the previous soft delete and restore are either WP:ROUTINE or no reliable sources themselves. Not even sure what the "book" states about the publication. We need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I cannot substantially find secondary, reliable sources that discuss it online. The article still fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The reference in Extreme Metal: Music and Culture is brief but does imply some notable significance as a pioneer in a specific (niche) field. Amusingly it does so in the context of talking about how the niche nature of metal makes it difficult to get attention to dedicated media sources. (You know, like having Wikipedia pages.) Admittedly there's a lot of source padding here and the article is very borderline. But I think this is a harmless one where we can err on the side of inclusionism. Simonm223 (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be better to have significant coverage. That is what WP:GNG states. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just for the record folks: This article was first nominated for deletion in 2005, with that result was Delete by two editors who agreed to its deletion. In 2019, somebody recreated the article in an apparent of WP:REFUND case. How many nominations do we need to claim an article notability or otherwise?--Biografer (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Once it's determined that it's notable, that cannot be revoked. If the article keeps getting recreated and the subject is repeatedly determined to not be be notable, we can WP:SALT it to avoid recreation. Otherwise, we could be at the delete recreate process for a long while. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. I would be happy to reconsider if someone brings sourcing that meets WP:SIGCOV, but my searches are not finding it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's give this one more week to see if we can determine a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:18, 4 August 2019 (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.