Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/77: The Year of Punk and New Wave


 * 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   No consensus (default keep).  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

77: The Year of Punk and New Wave

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

I can't find any reliable sources that shows notability. Fails WP:BK. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 05:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I've added an article from the Independent as a reference. It's a large UK paper, and therefore a reliable reference, which confirms notability. Strummer25 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Another reference added. Strummer25 (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * delete I still don't consider this notable at all, keeping it would be a stretch.Pstanton 07:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
 * Keep: As the "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" it meets criteria #1 at WP:BK and also WP:GNG. --JD554 (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep an improve: I note 2 reliable third-party sources in the article, both of which are reviews of the book in question, so it passes both the notability and verifiability tests. Shouldn't be too hard to find more sources, as many sources of book reviews are readily available. I'm actually using this book as a source for my graduate thesis at the moment, and I'm certain I'll come across it being discussed in various scholarly journals. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: insufficient notability - one of the links appears to go a non-notable entertainment blog in Canada. I can't see this article expanding beyond the stub that it is. JamesBurns (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a blog, it's the website for the Georgia Straight newspaper. That means there are two websites used as references which comply with WP:RS, which in turn means the book meets the criteria at WP:BK and WP:GNG. --JD554 (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, a stub that's been around since 2006, consisting of two sentences. There is nothing which asserts notability about this book. A-Kartoffel (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Apart from the two reliable sources? Remember, this is not a vote. --JD554 (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also saying people haven't worked on it is not a valid argument to delete. The question is, does it have the potential to be improved? Based on the couple of sources that have turned up rather easily, it appears that, yes, it does have that potential. AfD is not cleanup, and Wikipedia has no deadline, so a lack of improvement over time is not in and of itself a reason for deletion. Notability is asserted by the fact that the book has been reviewed by third-party sources, as shown by the references. Does it need improvement? Heck yes. But should we delete it even though it has potential? No. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment:Well, why aren't you people improving it? Or are you simply here to disrupt AfD. I've just checked the history - you've had more than two nearly three years head start to do it. JamesBurns (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate you not levelling some kind of accusations at others for perceived lack of effort. I, for example, was not aware that this article existed until recently. I became aware of it through WP:PUNK, a project in which I am active. If you check both the article's history and my contribution history you will see that I have never made an edit to this article, though I have made thousands of edits to others. However, not having edited the articled before does not mean that any of us cannot have valid opinions in this AfD, as we do have knowledge of this book and therefore can offer opinions as to its potential as an article topic. For example, now that I am aware that an article exists about it, I may be prompted to work on it in the future. Wikipedia is built entirely by volunteers, you know, which is why WP:NOEFFORT is an invalid argument. None of us are "disrupting AfD". We are offering valid opinions about the potential of an article on a subject of which we have knowledge. If you think this is "disrupting AfD" then you need to re-acquaint yourself with What AfD is. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When the article gets expanded is irrellevant, it is notable now. How to discuss an AfD states: When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy. I believe both IllaZilla and I have shown how the article meets policy, so how can you show that it doesn't? --JD554 (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The article fails to explain what makes this book notable. What makes the publication ground-breaking or stand out from other punk rock books?... it just doesnt state it's case. Maybe it could be merged into the authors article which I note is also a stub but IMO it's certainly not notable enough to warrant its own article. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm a punk music fan but this article is just plain embarrassing. I don't know why two users here are voting to keep while not doing anything to expand on those two sentences. There is nothing in those sentences explaining why this book is notable than any other publication. TheClashFan (talk) 00:25, 13 December 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.