Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.U.E.P.

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. It's worth noting that the nom has been indef blocked. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F.U.E.P.[edit]

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

Delete due to a WP:NALBUMS failure. No reliable sources to show any notability for this iTunes-only, non-charting release. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The above user is a confirmed sockpuppet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is part of Lily Allen albums, and it was released recently (I thought) :P --MisterWiki talk ^{(SIGN/REVIEW)} 21:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable. --MisterWiki talk ^{(SIGN/REVIEW)} 21:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant. Which part of WP:NALBUMS does this pass? GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note that iTunes-only albums are becoming more common and are the subject of some fairly detailed WP articles, for example The Complete Stevie Wonder, Bob Dylan: The Collection, The Complete U2. We can assume iTunes will expand this new marketplace, and none of these releases will chart because of current rules at Billboard. I'm also not sure if the WP:NALBUMS guidelines for music have caught up with these new developments yet. Therefore I have no vote, just this comment. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 09:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The remainder of Lily Allen's discography is notable enough for their own articles. Even though this is an EP, it makes sense to keep the article under the guidelines of WP:OSE, "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items." —C.Fred (talk) 19:10, 6 December 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) 02:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The EP is unique because it is Allen's only EP. It contains at least one charted song and a cover of a Grammy-winning one. I subscribe to C.Fred's idea that if this is the one non-charting entity in Allen's biography, making an exception so the biography is complete is a sensible thing to do. Also WP:NALBUMS says: "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. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." This isn't especially written for EPs, but it makes sense to extend this and choose to redirect/merge if not enough sources surface rather than deleting the entire thing. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. iTunes-only EPs don't recieve much media coverege, but some information could still be found.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 11:02, 13 December 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.