Deletion of Blood and Dirt

Comment: Notability is |not inherited, I'm not seeing any cast-iron  anywhere, let alone anything in-depth in a . The one keep voter has a clear conflict of interest as well
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERIT||WP:RS||WP:RS)

Comment: I'm not really around on WP at the minute but was asked for comment on this. There are a number of problems with the arguments being made for keeping the article, not least of all the fact that it seems to be almost entirely the page's creator arguing for its inclusion. An initial note on the "sources" provided; only one passes  (the Blabbermouth news report). No blogs or webzines, Netflix or IMDB can be used to establish notability, nor can the band's own website as it's obviously not third-party. I've not come across Megaforce Records before, and it's a bit unclear whether or not they're a notable label - if I get a minute, I'll try and look into it; if it is that would be some good evidence in favour of notability. However, remember that  states that not every release from a notable band is necessarily notable; it needs to have its own separate notability because of . What the author really could do with is some reviews in reliable, third-party, preferably print sources (or there are some |reliable web sources, just not the ones cited here! Note: "reliable" refers to the policy, not what the author may believe to be "reliable"). Unless these are found, the page lacks notability on its own, and there is little to be merged. A redirect would be more appropriate
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:MUSIC||WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:RS)

Comment: to Vio-lence seems to be the most appropriate action here. |Notability has not been established, nor has there been any meaningful covereage in |reliable sources
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)