Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Want Blood! (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We Want Blood!

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

Original AFD was challenged at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 14. Given the somewhat poor quality of the !votes there, and the incredibly low participation it would be better for a fresh discussion to occur. This nomination is procedural, and not a !vote either way. Courcelles 15:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:NALBUMS, no independent notability, no charting, not described as culturally significant by reliable sources, there is simply no reason to list this album in its own article. --Cerejota (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment -- I was the one who pointed at the google results. Since its restoration I started to add some more material and references. Frankly I am not familiar with
WP:NALBUMS. This is the first article about an album I have worked on, and wonder whether those who cite this section of the guideline will consider clarifying how it is interpreted. The references I found were to Dutch language publications tossed up by google news. So, how would I know whether these references would be considered RS? How does one look up where songs ranked on hitlists? On foreign language hitlists? Geo Swan (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Geo Swan's google search brings a good number of reviews of the album, and of the band in the context of the album. It clearly meets notability — frankie (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly none of them in reliable sources.--Cerejota (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. If I understand you, while most of the references google news found should not be considered RS, you think a limited number could. As a courtesy, to save me or someone else wasting everyone's time citing references you don't consider RS perhaps you could either list one or two you would regard as RS, or explain how you determined which were and weren't RS, or point us to an existing guideline or discussion where we could read that for ourselves? Geo Swan (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that RSes do exist --Guerillero | My Talk 22:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The unwritten law here is that albums by notable bands are notable by default. There are 63,000+ Google results for "We Want Blood"+"Peter Pan Speedrock", so there's no shortage of independent sources confirming the album's existence as well as the correctness of the information contained in this article. Contrary to what Cerejota is asserting above, albums don't need to chart, nor do they need to be "culturally significant" in anyone's judgment, in order to have an article on them. Disclosure: I came here purely by chance and had never heard of this band until now. --Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such unwritten rule. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2011 (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.