Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Decay

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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Decay[edit]

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

Not notable. Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources (only ref is self-published). Contested PROD. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable as there are multiple reviews from reliable sources: Pitchfork Media [1], Tiny Mix Tapes [2], CMJ [3], and a couple I'm less sure of : iTunes[4] (do we value their in-hosue reviews?), Prefix [5] (appears legit, but I'm not sure). Per WP:BEFORE, the nominator should not have evaluated the article purely on its current state but should have searched for sources, though if the search was just made for the phrase "in decay" without the musician's name, it would be easy to miss those because of the false positives for such a common phrase. In the event that consensus disagrees to keep, this should at least be redirected to Com Truise. postdlf (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above sources and other reviews [6][7]; this release appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 05:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 19 October 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.