Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic Saviors Volume 2: Recurrence (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. No consensus to delete after stubbing. Sandstein 09:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Saviors Volume 2: Recurrence[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article was subject to a deletion discussion in February 2014, which attracted very little participation, and was closed as "no consensus", but there were really no arguments for keeping which stand up to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; the creator of the article and an IP editor both claimed notability on the basis of the recording being on a notable label, but notability is not inherited from association with a notable company. Neither in the article's cited sources nor anywhere else that I have seen is there any evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 05:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - those sources are ... borderline at best - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Now keep per Torchiest. Nice one! - David Gerard (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources appear to be WP:RS, they are simply blogs, wordpress sites, event listings or fan made sites with no editorial oversight. Me5000 (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think a couple of the current sources are decent, and I've found the following additional sources:
That last source is more about Jim Semonik, who appears notable enough to have his own article. A few other options would be to create that article and redirect this to it, or create a single new article for the entire series, rather than trying to have separate articles for each volume. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 12:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The last option, I suggest - David Gerard (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 20:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Torchiest, David Gerard, I just wrote up the worst stub in the world using three of the listed sources. Let me know what you all think. JamesBWatson, Me5000, you too--I'm inclined to close this as merge if that's cool with y'all. Oh, please improve the article while you're at it. :) Drmies (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2015 (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.