Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lower East Side of Life

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. MBisanz ^talk 21:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Lower East Side of Life[edit]

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

Per WP:NALBUMS, "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence." This album does not meet the general notability criteria, and lacks reliable sources to justify a standalone article. CrazyHos12 (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reviews in Allmusic and Country Standard Time comprise reliable, third party coverage worthy of a standalone article. The fact that a brand new editor is filing AFDs has me suspicious. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do two reviews justify "significant coverage" per WP:GNG, plus the review on Country Standard Time is done by a relatively unknown author, I question the reliability of that review. The fact that I am a new editor does not relate to the AFD whatsoever, I am well within my rights to question the notability of this album. -CrazyHos12 (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Unknown author" is irrelevant. Country Standard Time is a reliable site. If two sources review an album, that's a good enough sign of notability — it'd be too much info to merge/redirect. I also see an article in the Tennesseean about the album, but it's paywalled. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per 8,000,000 similar past AfDs about albums, this coverage is sufficient.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two reliable sites have reviewed this album, so it passes WP:GNG just fine. Dream Focus 09:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reviews listed in the article demonstrate there exists significant coverage in multiple reliable sources; meets WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep well reviewed album reviewed my multiple notable publications by notable artist. Bouket (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews present in the article in question. GNG threshold is met. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reviewed by two reliable websites. Eric444 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2012 (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.