Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tasty (Good Rats 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 09:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tasty (Good Rats album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only significant source available, online or by other means, is the album's own liner notes. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a fine album, and there are some informative, decades-after-the-fact reviews on such sites as rateyourmusic, allmusic, and sputnikmusic, but I must reluctantly agree that it fails GNG, having never received significant coverage in (or by) any reliable, independent sources. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I really don't understand why I'm able to find sources given a couple of minutes of Googling while other people's exhaustive searches determine that nothing exists, but there are contemporary reviews available online from Billboard, Creem, and Robert Christgau. Given that it's from the mid-70s, further coverage in print sources will almost certainly exist. --Michig (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because most editors do not consider 2-3 sentences (one source is clearly promotional) as significant coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is 'clearly promotional'? The 509-word article in Creem, where only the first part is visible to non-subscribers to RBP? --Michig (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the band released multiple albums on a major label, it makes sense to have article on all of them. Just because they only have a tracklisting now, doesn't mean they can't be expanded. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:24, 24 July 2017 (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.