Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal Liberation (album)


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 07:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Animal Liberation (album)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article fails WP:GNG, has had no citations since it was created 14 years ago, hasn't had any content additions in 14 years (though editors have added wikilinks and an infobox ), and is basically complete original research (because of lack of citations). I can't be sure, but I don't even think it's a music album. Maybe this content belongs in some other article (maybe PETA, Animal liberation movement, or even Dan Mathews), but as best I can tell it doesn't qualify for a standalone article. Normal Op (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I did an internet search and found reliable citations including from The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune, and I have gone ahead and added these. The article should be kept as a result of its notability and it could be much expanded and improved. BrikDuk (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Extensive discussion of the album in this article, including nods towards discussion/accolades in significant publications (NYT, NME) and the broader significance of the album. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Among others, the New York Times, the Chicago and Los Angeles Readers, Rolling Stone, Billboard, The Gavin Report, and Tower Record's Pulse magazine all reviewed the album". Josh Milburn (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reasons mentioned above.-- Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk 21:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - No dispute with the voters above; and the nominator should become familiar with WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. Some articles can be cleaned up rather than deleted, no matter how long they've been in a deficient state. ☆  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) ☆ 21:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And you,, should familiarize yourself with WP:No original research (a core content policy) and WP:No personal attacks before insulting me as not doing this week what no one else had done for this article in 14 years! You should look at the version of the article I encountered before everyone started working on it after AfD was started. Now that people who care about this article have shown up and improved the article (though I notice you haven't), the article can stick around per WP:The Heymann Standard. But if no one cared then the non-sourced OR article would get deleted by default. So, if all you have to contribute to AfD discussions is to insult nominators for not performing well enough to your standards what you weren't willing to do yourself, hadn't done, and neither had anyone else, then you should consider staying away from AfD discussions lest you run off more editors. At least my contribution has resulted in an improved encyclopedia; your contribution has only resulted in pissing me off. Recognize that AfDs are not competitions, are not inherently adversarial, and can (and often do) result in improvements to Wikipedia. Normal Op (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no personal attack, and Doomsdayer wasn't even close to advocating original research. Don't be ridiculous. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you to Josh Milburn for serving as a voice of reason. If a recommendation to become familiar with some policies is a "personal attack", I would love to see how Normal Op reacts to something that is truly insulting. It would probably be to write yet another giant paragraph that consumes far more time than simply improving the article in question. ☆  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) ☆ 17:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Looks fine with the added sources. Jmill1806 (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per other users above. I don't see an issue with the references of the article.  Hiwilms   Talk   15:40, 18 October 2020 (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.