Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Be Someone Else

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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be Someone Else[edit]

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

This article fails the music notability guideline. It has not charted on any national or significant music charts and the integrity of the sources can be questioned. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 18:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep - this album may not be really important, it didn't charted anywhere, however, the article has got a good structure, with references and citations, and this article has been checked for B-Class status. Thank you, Salgado96 (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is a little too dependent on Facebook and YouTube references, but the other references seem dependable even though the reviews tend to be skimpy. Also, the new process of assessing B-grade article quality is supposed to include a review of the sources, so if that was done correctly then it works in this article's favor. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Out of the 32 sources used in this article, I know 11 of them to be unreliable for sure (the majority of them are French, so I cannot truly judge the quality of those). This adds up to over 33% of the article. I am also skeptical about the WikiProject Albums review done in this article. Despite the aforementioned fact, the reviewer (Salgado96, the same editor who contributed an abundance to the article, sent the article to GA, and voted above for keep), saw no problem with the citations. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 18:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is 67% source reliability a criterion for deletion? The unreliable ones could just be removed. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep here is a lot of GOOD information here which cannot be merged elsewhee. Silly nomination in my opinion, a bit of logic is required here consider the relative size of the article and where the information would go if deleted. Also note that Portugal has a limited number of reliable charts foor use on Wikipedia. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:29, 30 May 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.