Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dwarves Are Young and Good Looking

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. JForget 02:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dwarves Are Young and Good Looking

The Dwarves Are Young and Good Looking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Album fails

• Keep The Dwarves are notable, and so is the album per WP:NALBUMS: "In general, 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." Reviews, etc here. Lugnuts (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The key word is "may". Look at the rest of NALBUMS: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.". The article is a single sentence and a track listing. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable album by notable band.--Michig (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If the album is that notable, where is the significant coverage of it. One source you use is one page, yet that source is used in at least 7 different articles. How significant can the coverage of each album be if at least 7 of them are on the same page? Can't be that in depth. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - nonconstructive nitpicking over meaning of the term "Significant." I repeat my vote and comment from
  good faith principles. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Again, the word significant was placed in the criteria for a reason. If you don't like it being there, work to change it. But actually following the criteria isn't "nitpicking". But your repeated accusation of "nitpicking" is bordering on harassment. One paragraph mentions and being lumped in with 6-7 other albums on the same page isn't significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift and I have gotten into an argument and are accusing each other of acting in bad faith. I retract my statement to that effect (see strikethrough above) and wish to draw attention only to my votes for each of the AfD's in question. These debates are supposed to be about the articles themselves, and I apologize to the community for my part in the ugliness that is starting to develop. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The album appears to have received significant coverage from multiple sources (including Allmusic - I disagree with the nominator about the significance of the album's allmusic coverage.) Rlendog (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant coverage in multiple sources; meets
  WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow ^Talk 06:18, 8 February 2010 (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.