Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes

Please note that eight of these editors who !voted for this AfD: EastHills, A-Kartoffel, JoannaMinogue, JamesBurns, TheClashFan, HelenWatt, Marvin Ceee, Iam are socks of the same person, see: Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive Ikip (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 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   delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Essentially just a tracklist with few incoming links. No assertion to notability. Album did not chart, no singles released off it. A-Kartoffel (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I've added a new bunch of referenced info to the article regarding the Led Zep "Dazed and Confused" controversy.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 04:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The information you added is incorrect. Bands don't assign themselves ASCAP codes, only ASCAP does that. JamesBurns (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, has a few references and is just like any other stub. Stubs should not be deleted from Wikipedia.  Math Cool  10  Sign here! 05:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Aside from Dazed and Confused, which is already duplicated in that song article, there's not much notability with this release. Non-charting. JamesBurns (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  —-- Avant-garde a clue - hexa  Chord 2  05:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:MUSIC, which says that officially-released albums by notable artists are notable themselves. If the nominator's concern is that it's just a track listing, that's grounds for merging, not outright deletion.SPNic (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: contents of this article is a duplication of what already exists on "Dazed and Confused" article. As James has mentioned above, the copied wording is also incorrect. Only ASCAP can assign numbers, not artists. The song has some notability, and we already have an extensive article for that, but the AfD here is on the album (not the artist or the song) and the album by itself isn't notable. It has no history of charting and was long out of print for many years. Without "Dazed and Confused" this article would remain essentially a stub. TheClashFan (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, album very little notability. Trivial coverage on its own. JoannaMinogue (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Content duplication. Outside of one song already covered, there is limited notability of this album. EastHills (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - lots of sources available, one must only work them in. The album is not only notable for the one song. Both, the album's and the artist's article could be expanded with this. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa Chord 2  16:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: When that site uses language like "thieving magpies", I have to question it's neutrality.. There are also no references on it. A-Kartoffel (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: non notable album. Any information can already be found in the "Dazed and Confused" article. HelenWatt (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no awards, no charting, references used lacks neutrality WP:NEUTRALITY. Marvin Ceee (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This article has been on the site for a few years now; why are you attacking it now? If you had concerns about its notability, they should have been raised when the article was created. The redundant info can be gotten rid of without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.SPNic (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So? There is vandalism on wikipedia that goes unnoticed for many months... There are no guidelines which state length of time spent on wikipedia is a reason to keep. A-Kartoffel (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per above. Limited notability. No charting. Lacks neutral sources (in fact some of the content within the references violates WP:BLP as it makes unsubstantiated accusatory assertions against a living person). Iam (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2009 (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.