Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Studio album
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. Nominator has stated withdrawal as shown below; furthermore, no actual reason for deletion was given, just reasons for improvement -- the article's been tagged for references, which is pretty much all it needs. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Studio album
Article has no sources. It is an unreferenced stub for a significant amount of time, yet this article has a key importance for Wikipedia Music. It is dormant. Alex Perrier (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep Nominator's rationale smacks of WP:NOEFFORT, which is not a reaason for deletion. There are many articles which haven't been touched in a long time -- that doesn't necessarily mean that they should be deleted. The concept of a studio album is very much notable and encyclopedic; I suggest tagging with {{expert-subject}} if necessary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, but there are no references for this article. It is original research. I agree with your NOEFFORT statement, as well as the fact that the arcicle is encyclopedic and shouldn't be deleted, but it needs sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Perrier (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's tagged for references and some can easily be added. None of your reasons fit into the deletion policy, and you said that you agree that it shouldn't be deleted. Therefore, I feel that this discussion should probably be closed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, but there are no references for this article. It is original research. I agree with your NOEFFORT statement, as well as the fact that the arcicle is encyclopedic and shouldn't be deleted, but it needs sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Perrier (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as nominator has effectively withdrawn request. Subject notability is common knowledge. The real problem is that the article must be improved. Nick Graves (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2008 (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.
