Talk:Celtic Folkweave

Deleting articles
Before deleting an article that several editors have worked on since 2008, post your opinion and your rationale on the talk page first and allow other editors to discuss your proposed deletion, especially on the issue of notability, which can be subjective. Also, there is an AfD process for proposing articles for deletion, which you have not followed. Bede735 (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

So many things wrong here.


 * 1) How is notability "subjective" when we have a specific notability guideline and a separate one for albums? Notability has never been "subjective".
 * 2) I'm finding no sources that discuss this album in any sort of detail. All I find is Discogs and directory listings which verify the track listing, but no more. There have to be reviews and/or other significant coverage, not just "well, it exists, it's listed here in a directory".
 * 3) I find it all the more suspect that Mick Hanly doesn't have an article. Wouldn't it make more sense to give him one first? Having the album but not the artist is putting the cart before the horse.
 * 4) Articles can be redirected without having to go through AFD. There is nothing that says something must go through AFD if it's not notable. In particular, WP:NALBUMS says outright that short album articles can be redirected to the artist.
 * 5) How long the article's been worked on is immaterial. Whether it's 4 years, 4 days or all the way back to 2002, non-notable is non notable.
 * 6) I don't have to discuss the damn thing in the first place, but since you started a discussion, I'm responding.

tl;dr: I'm not seeing anything that asserts any real notability here. No significant coverage. IF you think it's worth keeping, PROVE IT. Show that there are sources that discuss the album in detail. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)