Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In League with Satan / Live Like an Angel

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. Will rename CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In League with Satan / Live Like an Angel

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

)

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

Does not seem to be a notable work. Sources are weak or passing mentions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article is full of
  fancruft that can be removed, and the authors used the wrong sources. It may also be a mistake to focus on the two-sided single release, as the A-side "In League with Satan" has all the history. But that song is notable as a separate non-album release, especially for kicking off decades of moral panic about supposed Satanism in metal music. This song, and complaints about it, are abundant in books on the history of heavy metal, books written by moralists who are scared of metal, books about Satanism, and books about the controversy. See this Google Books search: [1] with several pages of relevant results. The article can be kept but refocused on the historical (ahem) influence of "In League with Satan". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You wrote keep but your argument appears to be that it should be deleted and to delete the fan cruft, focus on the one song. That would also imply that it be moved to a new location to focus on the new subject. Wouldn't it just make sense to delete and create a new article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, just improve it through standard editing then possibly move it to a simplified title. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to In League with Satan: Per
  WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Notable how outside of the existing article for Venom and articles for their albums? Created by SPA. While we're at it Bloodlust (Venom song) by same SPA needs to go, too. Not individually notable. See WP:NSINGLE Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be careful with SPA accusations, as the person behind the Venom articles is simply making use of his own knowledge, but maybe a little too enthusiastically with the fan trivia. And just because this person sticks to Venom articles, the articles are not non-notable just for that reason. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with both in part. An SPA may not be editing for money or out of self-interest, but that doesn't mean that they have a clear understanding of the community's goals. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • SPA = no contribution to WP whatsoever outside a single topic. I made no reference to motivation! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename, per the above comments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:07, 19 December 2020 (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.