Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Still Living

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. After three relists and many sources being revealed, there is no consensus here, even among later contributors, as to whether or not the sources provided confer notability on the topic. Closing without prejudice against renomination or merging. Skomorokh 11:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's Still Living

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

I can't find significant coverage for this

talk) 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per
WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment there is significant coverage if you look - check Allmusic or Discogs for a start - will work on populating the article with suitable references etc. Dan arndt (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not significant coverage.

talk) 02:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Album did not chart nor did it receive significant coverage from secondary
reliable sources; no indication of notability. — Σxplicit 04:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Strong Keep - have provided detailed references & external links - expanded article & wikified. Dan arndt (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails
WP:NSONG, no significant coverage in external reliable sources. LK (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Undecided. Not so sure. I think the sources cited by the author could rise to the level of "significant coverage." I think more discussion on this is needed. Each of the sites cited has its own individual Wikipedia article. Additionally, each of the sites receives an enormous amount of monthly traffic in its venue.

However, I think that a Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL is in order. I suggest that the author check

WP:MUSICBIO and try to meet one or two of those other criterion. Artemis84 (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Have added additional references, each of which are 'notable' sources, which I believe is sufficient to justify the retention of the article. It should also be noted that this is an offical release by the band, whilst not sanctioned by the band, it was released by a major label,

WP:MUSICBIO (if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia). Dan arndt (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You haven't shown

talk) 02:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

Sources review:

An Allmusic page which is almost like IMDB except with music

A discography

A one sentence mention

Another one sentence mention

Ticket information

An overview of concert dates
- How the heck is that significant coverage?
  talk) 03:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete No significant coverage or other indication that this is notable. — Jake Wartenberg 03:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the sourced info - and there is some - to the band's page. Not sufficiently notable for a separate page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; clearly notable. The Allmusic review alone suffices to established "significant coverage". Hesperian 03:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The album's unusual release history is soundly and sufficiently sourced. Given the structure of the band's own article, the more significant content can't be merged without unbalancing that article. Despite the nominator's claim, the album is clearly not a mere bootleg, since it was rereleased on a legit label. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? Most of the coverage is incidental to the bootleg. I don't know
WP:MUSIC very well so I'll refrain from some more confident statement. Protonk (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The Trouserpress, Salon and Allmusic citations provide genuine commentary - and have differing perspectives, views and expression, so they have not been spammed. --Philcha (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2009 (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.