Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Cut-Glass (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 keep. Nominator has withdrawn and IMHO this discussion has enough participation and has been open long enough for a full "keep". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Cut-Glass (album)[edit]
- Lord Cut-Glass (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
NN album by barely (if at all) notable artist. Two reviews are not sufficient to indicate notability. →ROUX ₪ 07:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'd like to add reviews from here, here, here and here to the ones already linked to in the article. Meets WP:GNG, and please read WP:BEFORE. The notability of the artist is also not in question. Thanks sparkl!sm hey! 09:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or--radical idea--you could assume that I am well aware of WP:BEFORE and Pitchfork did not come up in a Google search, as Google tailors results to individual searchers. → ROUX ₪ 09:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources are available via Google, it's not too hard to find them - that's how three of the four sources I mentioned above were found. Let us not forget that there were already two independent reliable sources in the article prior to the nomination. sparkl!sm hey! 09:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And, again--try reading this time: those sources didn't appear in Google when I searched. You might also note my nomination statement: "Two reviews are not sufficient to indicate notability." Seriously, it would behoove you to pay attention to what people say; this is a recurring problem at AfD. → ROUX ₪ 11:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources are available via Google, it's not too hard to find them - that's how three of the four sources I mentioned above were found. Let us not forget that there were already two independent reliable sources in the article prior to the nomination. sparkl!sm hey! 09:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or--radical idea--you could assume that I am well aware of WP:BEFORE and Pitchfork did not come up in a Google search, as Google tailors results to individual searchers. → ROUX ₪ 09:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @494 · 10:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability asserted and appropriate references provided etc etc. Crafty (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the reviews that were already in the article per-AfD nomination. I feel 2 reviews is enough since the guidelines call for significant coverage in reliable sources. The reviews specifically target the album, so are significant. There is more than one of them so that meets sources. Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 04:57, 21 July 2009 (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.