Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sakkarawattam (First Sinhala Rap Album)

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. Since the artist article has been deleted, this qualifies under WP:CSD#A9 also. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sakkarawattam (First Sinhala Rap Album)

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

The article failed to pass WP:NALBUM. I failed to find any source on google to support notability and the article cited zero reliable source. Thank You – GSS (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with the artist's AFD, there's nothing to suggest relevance at all. KaisaL (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Non-notable album. Does not pass WP:GNG.Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 14:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant: When you knew it fail WP:GNG why you declined the Speedy requested by Blackguard SF and wasted everyone's time on this AfD. GSS (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article made a credible claim of significance. After I removed some unreliable references some others were added . I determined later that the article did not meet GNG. Show some AGF. I have wasted no one's time. You really should redact that comment. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 16:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the Speedy after filling in 6 bare reference(s) and the aticle was a clear case of WP:A9 as all the sources are non-rs to pass WP:NMUSIC (see here). GSS (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do not agree. Good day! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 16:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "we"? GSS (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient independent sources to establish notability.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2016 (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.