Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copacetic


 * 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. There is a strong consensus here that this album has demonstrated sufficient notability, both through multiple reliable-source reviews and the general notability of the band. ~ mazca  talk 00:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Copacetic

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not meet notability guidelines wp:note Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment If this article is deleted (I haven't formed an opinion yet), then it should be replaced by a soft redirect to Wiktionary - see Articles for deletion/Copasetic, a recent discussion about a different article that this title previously redirected to (this article was then at Copacetic (album)). Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose First of all, this article is not about definition in the Wiktionary. Second, I have no idea where the editor who nominated this gets the idea that it doesn't meed notability guidelines. If it does, than no other album articles do. DanTD (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes other album articles need to be deleted that don't meet guidelines. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Major-label album by notable artist. Has an allmusic review, I'm sure more sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Multiple significant coverage demonstrates notability. Allmusic review in article +, , , , . This is why we have WP:BEFORE.--Michig (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Michig. (And whenever Ten Pound votes keep, you can bet it meets the most stringent analysis -- ;-)  (Can someone snow close this?)--Epeefleche (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The band certainly seems notable, and considering this album was reviewed by both Allmusic and Rolling Stone, I would consider that sufficient to warrant meeting WP:NALBUMS.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  01:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons explained by Michig and others: major-label debut album by notable band, plenty of non-trivial media coverage. This one's a no-brainer. WP:BEFORE involves a bit more than slapping a "notability" tag on an article the day before nominating it for deletion! Contains Mild Peril (talk) 02:47, 28 October 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.