Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dithyrambos (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 delete. No prejudice against recreation as an appropriate redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dithyrambos (album)[edit]

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

Does not suggest notability or qualify under WP:NMUSIC JayJay^{Talk to me} 02:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no evidence that the album has independent notability. It may be that reliable sources in Japanese exist but that would need to be demonstrated. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Room Girl. Most of MEG's albums are clearly notable, I'd rather have consistent coverage, since everyone agrees the artists herself is notable. Having articles on 2/3rd of her albums doesn't make a lot of sense.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all not all of her Albums are notable, and not everybody thinks they are. Peaking at 290 on the charts and selling less and 1,000 albums really constitutes as notable? I don't think so. JayJay^{Talk to me} 17:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Absolutely no evidence has been presented that any of Meg's albums have independent notability which is why a whole load of them are at AFD. WP:OTHERSTUFF applies here as well as WP:NALBUMS. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that some are surviving AfD then. I never even heard of Meg before these AfDs, but its clear she is quite popular. This album has the least coverage of any, hence my comment above.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One survived AFD through "no consensus" and one survived because the closing admin overlooked the fact that the only comments correctly referencing actual policy were for delete. I guess he missed the whole "AFD is not a vote" thing. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A collection of Oricon chart notes and Amazon and HMV retail listings does not constitute the level of third-party coverage required by WP:NALBUMS to justify a self-standing article like this. The notability of the artist, Meg, is not in question here, so WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are not particularly persuasive. --DAJF (talk) 01:36, 10 March 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.