Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallucigenia (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 speedy keep. Withdrawn. User:Bearcat has found enough sources that it's pointless to have this up for deletion anymore. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hallucigenia (album)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable album. The only definitely reliable source I can find for this album is the AllMusic entry. This verifies the existence of the article, and contains a review, but we need more than just that one source. Sources like Discogs, Spotify, and Napster are not reliable, and that's about all I can find outside of the AllMusic entry. WP:NALBUM suggest a merge to the band's page, but I personally feel like a redirect would be the better result here. Hog Farm (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It charted in Canada peaking at #37 but that is not an automatic right to inclusion per WP:NALBUMS, only suggests that it might be notable. I will wait to see if anyone can come up with reviews. Mattg82 (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The thing about albums that were released in the 1990s is that their sourcing won't necessarily Google well, because that was an era when media coverage was not routinely published to the web — so for a topic that's that old, Google is not the whole story or even most of it, but rather you need to search news archiving databases to determine whether the topic had sufficient media coverage in its own time. In just five minutes on ProQuest, I've already been able to considerably beef up the sourcing, so there's a much clearer case for keeping it now. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2020 (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.