Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel's Touch

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 close without action. Consensus is that this mass nomination is too unwieldy to properly evaluate. Note: I will rollback the AfD tags for convenience. Sandstein 20:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angel's Touch

~~Band fails~~

WP:V. I can't find anything on this band, and think it may be a hoax. A google search for ""Angel's Touch" Jennifer Roberts Jessica Farilla" returns zero hits. The album isn't on amazon, all the claims are unsupported. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, so I should really have checked the article history. Turns out the page was hijacked, and was initially an article for a single by
WP:MUSIC, so I'll leave the AfD go... Nouse4aname (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Also nominating all releases below, there is no content on any of these articles. I cannot find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as required by

WP:MUSIC

.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and relist separately What a mess. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close As I learned myself on doing a batch nom far too many articles listed, around five or so articles listed together is a far better number. For large batches like this, it's too time-consuming for other editors to do the appropriate research for each article, to try to determine notability for each individual one. Please feel free to relist, but I'd suggest bundling far fewer together at a time. Raven1977 (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So somehow it will be quicker to list them all separately rather than in a list? That makes no sense. It takes the same amount of time to assess each one whether it is listed alone or together.... Nouse4aname (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close and relist 21 articles that are not part of a series is too many to consider in a single AfD. The nominator may be right about the lack of notability - but everyone will keep skipping to the next debate while that mammoth list remains. Paxse (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2008 (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.