Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albums that Planet Sound has rated 9/10


 * 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. Nja 247 09:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Albums that Planet Sound has rated 9/10

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

Too specific and non-notable. Not even worth merging to Planet Sound. See WP:NOT. ~EdGl  &#9733;  23:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete trivial list. Why not 10/10? 0/10? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 00:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Umm, This is Sub-article for Planet Sound--  Michael  (Talk) 00:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is technically no such thing as a "sub-article" on Wikipedia. That aside, the information in this article is unencyclopedic and does not warrant inclusion either as its own article or in its "parent article." ~EdGl   &#9733;  01:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope it gets deleted soon. I don’t care..--  Michael  (Talk) 01:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. List based on arbitrary, subjective criterion. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm not even going to ask why they chose 9/10 rather than, say, 10/10 or 8/10. Other than that, I doubt something has randomly chosen has this is encyclopedic. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  09:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The article says that 9/10 is the highest rating Planet Sound gives. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Inclusion criterion is completely random. Keeping it would set a precedent that allows all other ratings and posssibly articles about other publications as well. - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indiscriminate information. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:57, 3 May 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.