Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apistogramma (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 Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apistogramma (album)[edit]

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

No mention of this album on Allmusic and no Google books, news, or scholar matches. Fails notability guidelines for music. The artist is notable, but this particular album is not. Neelix (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Official album release by a notable band. Everything in the article is verifiable via reliable sources. There's no reason to delete this, and a merge to the band's article wouldn't make sense, so leave it as it is. This would certainly have received print coverage at the time (1998), even though Google might not know about it.--Michig (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll just add that Trumans Water as a band has achieved notability so their album articles should at least start out with assumption of associated notability. The band has many album articles and a whole slew of them were recently proposed for deletion. Many of the others have survived review, probably for the same reasons. Also, the album articles, including this one currently under discussion, certainly need work (especially references) and should be categorized as stubs. But that does not automatically mean that they are non-notable. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 08:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - There is no such thing as "associated notability." Many artists are notable who have produced albums which are not. No scholarly reviews of this album have been found thus far. The only reference on the article at all is one stating what production company produced the album. This reference is not sufficient to establish the notability of the album. Neelix (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix, please read WP:NALBUMS, which states: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does not conflict with notability guidelines for music. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This meets WP:NALBUMS, as the artist is notable. The album also meets WP:V. I agree that it's bizarre that this isn't listed on Allmusic. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Users are saying that this album is notable but they are not demonstrating how. A Stop at Willoughby has quoted WP:NALBUMS, stating that "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." This guideline must be read in context. The preceding sentence in the guideline states that all albums must have "significant coverage in reliable sources." This album does not. Neelix (talk) 20:29, 28 November 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.