Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Thing Going


 * 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Thing Going

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

Fails Notability (albums). I don't think it should be merged because there is little info to merge and Rhonda Vincent just doesn't have a good spot to fit a merge. D ARTH P ANDA talk 20:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Huh? Notability (albums) is inactive, having been superceded by WP:NALBUMS. And this one plainly qualifies. A few reviews: Associated Press, PopMatters, Dallas Morning News, New York Times, National Public Radio, Columbus Dispatch, etc. Next time, please do some research before nominating. -12.68.8.18 (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Response - Aww, jeesh, I clicked the wrong link. Ah well, I still think it fails because there is simply no information in the article that is new information aside from a track listing. I may be wrong, but to quote 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" which makes me think that it should be merged. The only problem there (which is one I noted in my original nomination) is that merging would make the Rhonda Vincent page quite ugly, which is why I nominated this for deletion. D ARTH P ANDA talk 20:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it should be expanded, using some of the material I provided. From WP:NOTE, a guideline: "When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself..." -12.68.8.18 (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I should probably also note, since it hasn't been mentioned yet, that the album in question was #1 on Billboard's US bluegrass chart for seven weeks. -12.68.8.18 (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha, I'm voting keep now, as per 12.68.8.18. Sorry about this... D ARTH P ANDA talk 21:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. The IP turned up several sources which can easily add to the article. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I would think an album that went to #1 on a Billboard chart would be notable. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2008 (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.