Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Légions Noires

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No consensus - Keep. --VS talk 08:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Les Légions Noires

Les Légions Noires (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I firmly believe that Les Legions Noires existed and that a small number of bands released records. However, the vast majority of this article constitutes original research as it is unsourced, and is quite possibly unsourceable. I have tried to improve the article, but in the absence of sources I do not see how we can keep it. Obviously fanzines and Internet forums do not count in this instance. Equally, there is no point voting to keep this article if nothing is, or can be done to improve it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep This has articles in French and Dutch, and the bands dealt with have released material on four apparently noteworthy labels. The subject has inherent notability; that said, the article is in dire need of a good cleanup, and has been for some time. The fanny parts and wild speculation should be circular-filed. Chubbles (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly the articles on the French and Dutch sites consist of what I had whittled down this article to before you reverted my changes... the only bits which can be sourced, i.e. an introductory paragraph followed by a list of bands. Regardless, appearance of Wikipedia pages does not establish notability. Releases on noteworthy labels might do, but not if the labels are 'noteworthy' for releasing LLN records. That would be circular logic. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact that a subject has an article in another language is not in and of itself sufficient to establish notability; however, it is usually an indication that a subject has received international attention and is probably encyclopedic. We have an entire project dedicated to writing articles that have entries in other languages (here). Beyond that, WP:MUSIC notes that bands who release enough material on notable labels may generally be considered notable themselves; it's a good benchmark for a group's popularity. Chubbles (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I would be prepared to keep the article if all of the unsourced statements are removed, which is what I had edited the article down to - a statement that these individuals exist, that they are French and that they released a small number of records (I believe it is about five across the thirty odd bands said to be involved) on notable named labels. Everything else is unsourced and/or unsourceable and hence cannot be considered encyclopedic. This is in fact what the French and Dutch pages appear to have. I am still in search of reliable sources but they do not appear to exist. There is a further problem incidentally... the text is near identical to the text on this Myspace site: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=282534767. I don't know which came first, the Myspace bio or the Wikipedia entry. The creator of the article has claimed that they have plaigarised him, but we only have his word for that. The Myspace site also has a French translation of the article, though this does not appear to be present in the French Wikipedia article. I am not sure what to make of this or how to proceed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The text of this article predates the creation of that myspace page. Chubbles (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll attempt a rewrite, but I am going to remove the unsourced rumoured material. Anyone else out there reading this who wants to help, feel free ;-). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was wasn't going to mention WP:MUSIC as my beef with this article is broadly one of verifiability not notability, but since you mention it... which bit of the guideline do you think qualifies LLN for inclusion (I agree with your stance on notability in general but I'm unconvinced the guideline backs you up on this one). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I vastly prefer the current revision, though it still needs some work. I've found a few Terrorizer reviews and a brief historical mention from the black metal retrospective looking at regional scenes. I'll try and add some of it with citation. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep valid article. Catchpole (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You think that it is valid that there should be an article for this subject, or you think the article as currently stands is valid? If I remove everything unsourced, we end up with a nearly blank page. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. There is nothing wrong with stubs. If the subject is notable, then better a stub than nothing. If the only way to improve the page is to strip it down to a stub, then so be it, but that should be the approach: not deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per it being a big deal. The LLN is just as big as the so called "black metal mafia" but more so. It was a whole movement. Hackser (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
'Being a big deal' is POV and needs sourcing. To claim that the LLN was as big as the Norwegian 'Black Mafia' but more so' is ridiculous, as numbers of reliable sources and record releases will demonstrate. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2008 (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.