Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Life, Vol. 1 — Las Vegas


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Club Life, Vol. 1 — Las Vegas

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Declined Prod by author. Prod reason was "Unreferenced Non-Notable Album as per WP:NALBUMS". Author did reference this, however it still consists of very little more than a track listing. Per WP:NALBUMS this should be Merge/Directed to Tiësto discography Hasteur (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I wrote information about the album from the references given so it doesn't stay just as a mere track listing page. Stratogustav (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The blurb you put on the page doesn't qualify the page for a keep. Hasteur (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Better sourced than most album articles on Wikipedia, and it appears to meet the notability guideline. It seems to me a merge would be unnecessarily messy in this case. VQuakr (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:NALBUMS as this album hasn't charted yet. Please also review WP:OTHERSTUFF. The article is a small blurb about the album (which doesn't demonstrate it's notability) and a track listing.  This is a prime candidate for Merge/Redirect per WP:NALBUMS. The extent of the references coverage is "The artist is popular" and "New Album".  A Merge/Redirect doesn't bar the way for a future expansion once there are verifiable reliable sources to back up the notability of this article.  This article fails the WP:TOOSOON sub-reasoning as the album was released under a week ago and hasn't had time to either have a  pre-launch buzz or a significant post-launch review/charting. Hasteur (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, NALBUMS talks about coverage in secondary sources, not chart positions. Still a keep from me, particularly since "the article is too short" is a not a reason for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication that this album is notable, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Struck !vote, charted. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Surely the sources in the article provide at least an indication that the article might be notable? Is the issue for you that the sources are not independent, or that they are not reliable? VQuakr (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources verify that this album exists. There is not any non trivial coverage of the album in these sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that the MTV article is about the album, what would constitute non trivial coverage? VQuakr (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The MTV article is not about the album. It just says it exists.duffbeerforme (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep The Billboard and MTV articles about the album satisfy WP:GNG for me. Robman94 (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * They would if this were an article about the artist. However one article is "There's a new album"  the other talks about the artist and how he's changing his style.  Not substantial coverage for this album. Ergo, Redirect to the discography. Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The MTV article is significantly more than a mere confirmation of existence, though I agree we should continue to improve the sourcing of the article. VQuakr (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just re-check both articles and they are both about the album. They talk about how his style has changed from his previous album, etc, so they both count.  Add in the fact (per VQuakr) that the album has charted and it's still a keep for me. Robman94 (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - The album has charted in the UK. I added the chart position with a reference. VQuakr (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And peaked at #3 in the US, also added to the article with a reference. VQuakr (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2011 (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.