Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diet For A New America


 * 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's no consensus to delete this article but good arguments for both keeping and merging. The merge discussion can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Diet For A New America

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

This is an article about a musical recording that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. The creator of this article was advised, and given the opportunity, to add references to the article to support his claim of notability; but he has not been able to do so. Untick (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to 58 (band) per WP:NALBUMS (Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting). There doesn't appear to be significant independent coverage in reliable sources about the album itself. --Onorem♠Dil 13:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not clear from the nomination statement what research was done, if any, to clarify this subject's notability in preparation for the AfD. I found that there were multiple sources that cover the subject significantly, and have used those sources to expand the article just now. There's enough for the general notability guideline, so I recommend keep. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I didn't look hard enough. I won't argue against keep, but it's probably likely that additional sources aren't going to surface 9 years later. I'd stick with merge as my !vote since even after being expanded, the article on the band could easily host all the available information while still being barely more than a stub. --Onorem♠Dil 03:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the merge because there was always so little information about the band as it was for all intents and purposes a place for Nikki to show his solo work, but although I agree with the merge, when the article was proposed for deletion, despite what Untick claims, as the author i was NOT notified and only found out by keeping the page on watch, which is not in line with the Wikipedia guidelines given for proposed deletion. Btw i looked at the article and was very impressed at the addition to it, I myself never even knew alot of that :)DrMotley (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  —-- Avant-garde a clue - hexa  Chord 2  14:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I can understand other editors' wishes to beef up the article on 58 (band), and that could be done by merging all this content there. But the sources I have added are addressing the album (discussion of its conception and production, critics' reviews), rather than the band in general, so our notability guideline would suggest that this content remain at the current article. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Paul Erik's expanding/sourcing of the article. The album now passes WP:NALBUMS. Nice job! Cunard (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cunard. Deletion Mutation  16:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked sockpuppet. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 20:34, 28 March 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.