Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11,000 Clicks


 * 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

11,000 Clicks

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has no references, is uncategorized, orphaned, and fails WP:V and WP:N. Tavix (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Delete per nom. – Jerry  teps  00:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Like the nominator said. Forego (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, keep per Ironholds's comment below. --Forego (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:N. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 00:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; what the hell people? Other than the WP:V and WP:N things the others are not reasons for deletion. It has no references, yes, but a simple google search would have asserted notability and verifiability. It's a first draft of an article; of course it isn't going to be perfectly categorised, but that doesn't mean it's worth being deleted. I'm going to rewrite it to be more encyclopedic, but I'm still having trouble understanding how this even got delete votes. Ironholds 00:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that everything mentioned by the nom except "fails WP:N" does not support the article being deleted, and I should have been more clear. As far as the Google search asserting notability and verifiability, none of the links are of actual content, and the only thing that can be verified is that this DVD exists. Look through them for yourself. They are all websites trying to sell the DVD or essentially database pages which list the published "about this DVD". « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 00:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep- I think Ironholds is right. A mass of google hits including what seem to me to be substantial secondary sources indicate both WP:V and WP:N are met. Reyk  YO!  01:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Search engine test... a bunch of google hits do nothing to prove verifiability. --Rividian (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but they do link you to stuff which does. A google search would, for example, have linked you to the allmusic guide review, new york times review and the hundreds of websites which stock this dvd. Iron<b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 11:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Or it could have included thousands of unrelated links or useless sources. If there are reliable sources, link to them... not the web results. Random webpages (i.e. google web results) are assumed to be unreliable sources. --Rividian (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * new york times review and an All Music Guide page; it's released by a notable label, it comes from a notable artist; what more do you need? <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 11:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The New York Times did not review this. Search for the first sentence and you'll find three unrelated websites, leading me to think that this is what was published by the publisher of this DVD. All Music Guide is simply a database. « D. Trebbien ( talk ) 00:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - It seems to me that a vast majority of these G-hits are links to purchase, links to user-added content, and the like. I agree that verifiability is met, but I question the notability.  It does have an allmusic review, which gives it some credibility, but not necessarily enough in my opinion.  Not every album by a notable group is notable.  Addionne (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Allmusic review plus a new york times review sticks WP:N firmly in the net. Swish. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 11:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The nytimes review is from allmusic... Addionne (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooh woops. Always read the small print, I guess. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: WP:NM states that an officially released album by a notable musician can have its own article. Moreover, if the article were to be deleted, people would see a gap (or redlink, if you like) in the discography of Moloko and would just create the article again, which suggests that the more sensible route would be to place a cleanup or refimprove template and hope that people will improve the article over time. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup. It was released by a notable band on a notable label; therefore, it's notable in its own right per consensus. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 18:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What is says is 'officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage.' Which means it can have an article, not that it should.  Addionne (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoops, didn't realize this was a DVD, not an album. Darn non-standard infoboxes. Anyway, Weak neutral per precedent that releases by notable acts are usually notable. There is an Allmusic review, but other than that I'm finding very little. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 19:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Some references have been added. – Jerry  teps  22:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * keep - article stinks, but that's not a reason for deletion, seems notable per other music efforts. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually rewrote the article; you should see how it was before! <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 21:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject is notable and article is on it's way and just needs development.  Lympathy    Talk  15:37, 4 August 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.