Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"C" is For (Please Insert Sophomoric Genitalia Reference Here)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"C" is For (Please Insert Sophomoric Genitalia Reference Here)

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

Non-notable EP, sources are primary, unreliable (Blabbermouth) or trivial. Subject is also a source of edit warring over capitalization of "is". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Some coverage, but not enough to satisfy WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Previous deletion here. Blabbermouth is unreliable though? I have always considered it to be, and it is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Rehevkor ✉ 18:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Previous consensus for deletion is not enough to justify a following deletion, as the facts and circumstances may change over time. WP:CCC also applies here. --Tathar (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attempt to imply it was, just linked for reference. People can make up their own minds about it. Rehevkor ✉ 19:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If the article has sold 10,000 copies it may be is notable enough. Also it would be merged into "V" Is for Vagina, sicne contains two tracks. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. I came to this AfD expecting something much different, but after seeing the article I decided to take a look for myself. A quick overview of the cited sources leads me to believe that the article meets "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as in WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. The IGN article in particular needs to be cited more than it is based on the depth of the coverage. The Blabbermouth articles are also somewhat useful as source material. However, source #3 seems to lack any instance of "Puscifer" and is an opinion article, which is generally not suitable as a source on WP. Also, I'm afraid that source #7 is a poor source as well. Not only is Twitter generally a poor source (with some exceptions), the link is prone to link rot as it doesn't link to the specific tweet's permalink. I also wonder why source #9 is used. As far as I can tell, it appears to be an ecommerce site selling the album, which I must recommend against using whenever possible. Is there perhaps a better source for that? Perhaps someone can clean up the page to meet album article guidelines. --Tathar (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Album received some media coverage from some reliable sources, this raises its notability factor. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 03:13, 27 April 2011 (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.