Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kill the Child
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 keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kill the Child[edit]
- Kill the Child (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)
Unable to establish notability outside of an Allmusic review. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. An "Allmusic" review is sufficient to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia per WP:MUSIC. OGBranniff (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative delete. I'm not foreclosed to the idea that there are more sources out there, but nothing was immediately forthcoming for me. In contrast to the above opinion, I do not believe that WP:MUSIC grants an assumption of notability on the basis of a sole allmusic review. Nothing in the text suggests that, and even if there was a criterion to that effect, it would arguably be invalid under WP:N's wider requirements of multiple sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep AllMusic plus the other review I've added meets WP:GNG. At worst, redirect to Swans discography. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jason Thornberry's review is very short, more sources are still required. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Very short" is subjective. A source is a source. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A source is not a source: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail". (WP:GNG) --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "A source is not a source". Haha! You're a funny guy. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A source is not a source: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail". (WP:GNG) --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Very short" is subjective. A source is a source. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jason Thornberry's review is very short, more sources are still required. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable enough, and there's no benefit to the project from deleting this. --Michig (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Why delete instead of redirect? This user has created about a dozen of these album deletion requests and has yet to explain why they should be deleted and not simply redirected. Note that if they are redirected, the categories should remain and {{r from album}} should be added. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Has secondary sources, live performance albums are still notable.--Soul Crusher (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 2 March 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.