Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AC4 (album)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AC4 (album)[edit]
- AC4 (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Blatant advertising. References are to commercial sites WP:REFSPAM, no notability as per WP:NALBUMS. This may qualify for G-11 and or A-7. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to AC4. Seems fitting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The so called commercial reference links (the band's official page) has been replaced by neutral references.
- What constitutes album notability on Wikipedia is somewhat arbitrary. For example, should "lesser" albums be omitted from the Chronology in the album infobox? That would defy the purpose of the chronology template. As far as this particular album goes, AC4 is the first and so far only album the two original Refused members Lyxzén and Sandström have made together since The Shape of Punk to Come (1998). It was also one of the very few swedish hardcore punk albums reviewed in the mainstream tabloids that year.[1][2] Roogan55 10 June 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:21, 17 June 2013 (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.