- 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. joe decker talk 00:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
3 (Suburban Kids with Biblical Names album)
- 3 (Suburban Kids with Biblical Names album) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced. Promotional Rathfelder ( talk) 18:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- The band have their own Wikipedia page and this should definitely Redirect to that. This has nothing to suggest the album is noteworthy in a world of several billion other albums. Without a single review or citation it is certainly not worthy (as it stands) of its own entry. Pupsbunch ( talk) 18:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Retracting my Redirect Per reasons stated in nomination. *Treker ( talk) 19:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Upon the most basic effort of source searching - typing the name into Google, within like less than a minute I found dedicated coverage from reliable sources like AllMusic and Exclaim. WP:ALBUM/SOURCES are clear that these sources have a consensus for being reliable. One of the songs from the album, "Rent a Wreck", was used in a 2007 Prius Car commercial and its lyrics were cited by PopMatters as a standout part Swedish Pop music here in discussing their appearance on a Labrador Records 10 year retrospective compilation release. If a little bit of digging found out this much, I'm sure there's plenty more out there, if that's not enough to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm rather confused, there was a source present in the article prior to the nomination, and its still there. And it's AllMusic, a reliable source per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES, that covers it in good detail. I'm concerned how three people now have stated "unsourced" as their deletion reason. How closely are we investigating here? Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging Rathfelder for further explanation on his nomination, and *Treker and Pupsbunch for clarification about their stances. Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't see a reference
Rathfelder (
talk) 17:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- How did you miss this? The article is small, how did you go about nominating an article on the basis of being "unsourced" without checking for a reference section? Really, you're supposed to be following through on WP:BEFORE, but at a bare minimum you need to actually be reading the article you're nominating for deletion. I'm also very puzzled as to what you feel is particularly "promotional" about it as well. (Note: the article looked like this when it was nominated for deletion.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't see a reference
Rathfelder (
talk) 17:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Not to pile on but the AllMusic source alone would lean towards notability. Add the comments from Sergecross with regards to songs on the album and this is a no-brainer. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 18:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I've rewritten and expanded the article out of stub status using reliable sources. Please look over its current state rather than just looking at this rather misleading deletion nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm perfectly happy with the improved article. Rathfelder ( talk) 23:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The page has improved significantly. When I looked at it previously it was just a track listing. Pupsbunch ( talk) 19:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I think everyone, in various ways, including the nominator, have removed their opposition. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Per Sergecross73 and RickinBaltimore. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. joe decker talk 00:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
3 (Suburban Kids with Biblical Names album)
- 3 (Suburban Kids with Biblical Names album) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced. Promotional Rathfelder ( talk) 18:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- The band have their own Wikipedia page and this should definitely Redirect to that. This has nothing to suggest the album is noteworthy in a world of several billion other albums. Without a single review or citation it is certainly not worthy (as it stands) of its own entry. Pupsbunch ( talk) 18:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Retracting my Redirect Per reasons stated in nomination. *Treker ( talk) 19:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Upon the most basic effort of source searching - typing the name into Google, within like less than a minute I found dedicated coverage from reliable sources like AllMusic and Exclaim. WP:ALBUM/SOURCES are clear that these sources have a consensus for being reliable. One of the songs from the album, "Rent a Wreck", was used in a 2007 Prius Car commercial and its lyrics were cited by PopMatters as a standout part Swedish Pop music here in discussing their appearance on a Labrador Records 10 year retrospective compilation release. If a little bit of digging found out this much, I'm sure there's plenty more out there, if that's not enough to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm rather confused, there was a source present in the article prior to the nomination, and its still there. And it's AllMusic, a reliable source per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES, that covers it in good detail. I'm concerned how three people now have stated "unsourced" as their deletion reason. How closely are we investigating here? Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging Rathfelder for further explanation on his nomination, and *Treker and Pupsbunch for clarification about their stances. Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't see a reference
Rathfelder (
talk) 17:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- How did you miss this? The article is small, how did you go about nominating an article on the basis of being "unsourced" without checking for a reference section? Really, you're supposed to be following through on WP:BEFORE, but at a bare minimum you need to actually be reading the article you're nominating for deletion. I'm also very puzzled as to what you feel is particularly "promotional" about it as well. (Note: the article looked like this when it was nominated for deletion.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't see a reference
Rathfelder (
talk) 17:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Not to pile on but the AllMusic source alone would lean towards notability. Add the comments from Sergecross with regards to songs on the album and this is a no-brainer. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 18:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I've rewritten and expanded the article out of stub status using reliable sources. Please look over its current state rather than just looking at this rather misleading deletion nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 19:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm perfectly happy with the improved article. Rathfelder ( talk) 23:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The page has improved significantly. When I looked at it previously it was just a track listing. Pupsbunch ( talk) 19:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I think everyone, in various ways, including the nominator, have removed their opposition. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Per Sergecross73 and RickinBaltimore. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- 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.