Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Smashing Pumpkins (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 delete. causa sui (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Smashing Pumpkins (album)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No good reason to punch holes in an otherwise comprehensive discography; an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. As WP:OSE says, Wikipedia intends to be a comprehensive reference. 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. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have all the other Smashing Pumpkins albums, it'd be nonsensical to remove one at this point. User:PapaDocFerrum (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 18:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - frankie (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The appropriate notability guideline for this page is WP:NALBUMS, which reads the following:

In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.

No question that The Smashing Pumpkins are notable, but the album hasn't been covered at all. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's argument from WP:OSE is at odds with the above notability policy. While I acknowledge and generally agree with it, removal of a single album that received an surprisingly limited release and (unsurprisingly) little coverage does little harm to WP. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there are no secondary sources. HW's "poking holes" argument has holes in it itself, as the existence or non-existence of other, similar articles is immaterial. It is entirely possible for "holes" to exist in a discography. I hope that the closing admin ignores these completely weightless arguments. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have no idea what provoked this outburst from TPH. It seems to me rather frivolous to cite WP:OSE for the rule that "the existence of other, similar articles is immaterial" when WP:OSE says quite plainly, in WP:OSE#Precedent in usage, that sometimes that factor is material, if not decisive. And it's a point that's been sustained/supported in other AFD discussions[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. And it's not simply "my" argument; note that User:Eric444 advances the same argument here [6] and it's cited by the closing admin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A promotional release that as it stands does not pass WP:NALBUMS. Eric444's other stuff argument referenced above was in addition to the albums charting and receiving coverage from reliable secondary sources. AIRcorn (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles need to stand on their own merits, not on the merits of similar articles. This is not any other album of the band and seems to be noticably not covered on paid attention to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I remember wp:albums says delete demos/promos. The article can't go anywhere because the album didn't. Szzuk (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2011 (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.