Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Alert (album)
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Speedy Keep. DustiSPEAK!! 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Red Alert (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
unsourced, no indication of notability, not a reasoable search term Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - OK it's unsourced, but hasn't been tagged as such. The "not a reasonable search term" is totally invalid argument, as it's a correctly disambiguated article title for a phrase which has many meanings. It should have been on the Red Alert dab page, to which I've now added it (yes, the page could usefully be tidied as the order of entries seems pretty random). There seems no good reason to delete this long-standing (2006) article. PamD (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Legitimate album by a legitimate act, thus a legitimate article topic. Should be able to pass WP:MUSIC if sources are found. This was one of the first articles I created, a couple of years ago, so I'll go back through it, clean it up & look for sources. Reviews at the very least should be able to turn up, but I'm headed out of town for a couple of days so I won't be able to find them right away. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - Unsourced is not a reason to delete, it just means that you should either find some sources yourself or tag the article as appropriate for others to find sources. The album is a notable album from a notable group. As above, not a reasonable search term is a very invalid argument! This should never have been nominated in the first place. jenuk1985 (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is a sourcing issue, not an AfD matter. — neuro(talk) 13:31, 14 February 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.