Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flame (Johnny Duhan 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. (post close comment) I'm kicking myself right now. I forgot I was the nominator because I did it on behalf of someone else. However, since I was neutral I'll leave it closed. If someone want's to reopen it then be my guest. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Flame (Johnny Duhan album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Completing on behalf of User:24.4.101.72. I remain neutral at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

From the article talk page

Deletion rationale - This is an epic fail of general and album notability criteria. The only "references" are to sales sites and/or the artist site. The tone of the article is inappropriate for an encyclopedia and appear to reflect the article author's opinions more than anything else. 24.4.101.72 (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article needs tidying up, but this is an officially released album by a notable artist. Johnny Duhan's Allmusic entry refers to Flame as an "impressive" collection of songs. I believe that WP:NALBUMS is satisfied here. --Bruce1eetalk 07:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep, the article has information and isn't a stub.--Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I basically agree with Bruce1ee above, though my vote is "weak" because there is not much else to go on. Regardless, this article could be an acceptable album stub. The original commenter is correct about how the article in too opinion-based and not very encyclopedic, but that's not a good reason for deletion in itself. Bad prose can be removed or corrected. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 16:17, 23 June 2010 (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.