Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/0 + 2 = 1

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The result was keep as the nomination was withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 22:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

0 + 2 = 1

Non-notable album covered in no reliable sources. Google reveals many hits, but most are only track listing/lyrics/selling the album.(EDIT)For some reason, the thing below the heading is linking to Article. Can someone with experience in technical stuff fix this? Thanks! Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Seems that everyone wants to keep it, so I withdraw the nom. I still don't see why its notable, though. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 22:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability for this album. JJL (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Albums by notable bands are normally considered notable. Also, the allmusic review and the second review count as reliable sources. Undeath (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC#Albums; "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia...should include independent coverage". The link to the Allmusic.com review already on the page before it was nom'd for AfD. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Particularly given what is said about the band at Nomeansno ("The band has never had, nor have they seemed to pursue, strong mainstream success, but..."), I think the emphasis must be on the word "may" in that sentence. JJL (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, couldn't agree with you more. There's also another good one at the top of the page as well, which says "guideline" which commonly gets mistaken for "policy". And it's that flexibility in the discussions I like. All IMHO of course. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as said above, albums by notable artists are usually notable. Has a couple of reviews. Information included is better than no information at all. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 11:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A couple of reviews is insufficient. There is no testimony that this album is, by itself, notable. A notable band can have a discography, but that is not the same thing as an article per record. Alternative Tentacles is a genuine label, but there is a big difference between "band's ok" and "every ep, single, and alternative purple vinyl pressing gets an article." It's the difference between notable and incidental. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, every release by a notable band is considered notable. "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia...should include independent coverage" Those few reviews make it notable. The allmusic review is good enough by itself.Undeath (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC#Albums Advocate (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the first line there is: "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I see one viable review there, plus the Mark Prindle web page. There should be more sources to indicate notability of this particular album. JJL (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. - McCart42 (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2008 (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.