Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rune Husk
- 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. Sandstein 12:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Rune Husk
- Rune Husk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minimal coverage, fails
missfortune 03:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
]
- Note: This debate has been included in the missfortune 03:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)]
- Note: This debate has been included in the missfortune 03:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)]
- Note: This debate has been included in the missfortune 03:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)]
- Delete lack of sourcing to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Found a number of dedicated articles from WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES.
- https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/22805-rune-husk-ep/
- https://consequenceofsound.net/2017/01/of-montreal-unveil-surprise-rune-husk-ep-stream-download/
- https://news.avclub.com/of-montreal-releases-new-ep-with-uncharacteristically-l-1798256277
- https://www.axs.com/of-montreal-drop-surprise-ep-rune-husk-113000
- https://www.stereogum.com/1919718/stream-of-montreal-rune-husk-ep/music/album-stream/
- https://exclaim.ca/music/article/of_montreal_deliver_surprise_rune_husk_ep
- Enough to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. The coverage isn't stellar, but I don't see a benefit from deletion, and the article could be expanded a little using the available sources. --Michig (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2018 (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.