Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drumized

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. WP:NACD (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 23:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drumized[edit]

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

Re-delete. Prod was contested after deletion, but the album continues to fail WP:MUSIC. JBsupreme (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete – Per User:JBsupreme. Changed my vote, see below. XXX antiuser ^eh? 18:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage to pass WP:MUSIC. A decent review here and more sources here. Lugnuts (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure about that... When I go to click on "about" for Drowned in Sound to determine their quality as a reliable source (and editorial policies), it actually takes me to their Wikipedia article. (!) The NYT blurb is a passing mention. JBsupreme (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSIC, also mentioned in the New York Times --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per lugnuts - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – mention in the NY Times establishes notability for artist and album. XXX antiuser ^eh? 01:10, 23 February 2010 (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.