Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blasphemy (album)

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. T. Canens (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy (album)

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (vf|M☯ 18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, 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. -Reconsider ! 11:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't understand this nomination. Knowing that Justin/Koavf nominates a lot of demo articles for deletion, I'm assuming that he mistook this for a demo. However, it's not - it's a full album by a notable band which is (arguably) sourced and contains more information than merely a track listing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources are not reliable, much of the text is still unsourced and has {{tone}} problems, and it appears to be a demo album--if not, it was released on two redlink record labels. It may well be notable, but that's not clear from the article as it stands. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - It's described both in the article and at Dark Domination as a debut album, which gives it a rebuttable presumption of notability per WP:NALBUMS as an album of a notable band consisting of more than simply a track listing (which is to say that, even were it not to have independent notability, it would warrant an article as a spun-out section of the band's article). Lack of reliable sources isn't a reason to delete (see WP:STUB) unless notability is in doubt or WP:HOAX is invoked. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band itself has no claim of noability, so the album does not b definition. No reliable sources providing significant coveage whatsoever. The authors need to ad WP:GARAGEBAND. 13:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

See here —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An AfD for Dark Domination having been opened, the band should be presumed notable pending the outcome there. Re my keep vote above, that should be interpreted as Keep if Dark Domination survives AfD, delete if it doesn't. The album should stand or fall with the band. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 01:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting whilst the AfD for the band continues. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Domination has been closed as "keep" --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 13 June 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.