Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green (Ray LaMontagne album) (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus, or at the least not much improvement at all since the first AFD. –MuZemike 01:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Green (Ray LaMontagne album)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No substantial coverage and self-released demos are non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't find significant coverage in reliable sources, but found this album listed as a demo recording in pages sharing unreleased LaMontagne content. Hekerui (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This AfD is a desperate attempt to get more votes on the first AfD from just one month ago, in which the same nominator suggested deletion for the exact same reason, and that AfD was closed as Keep. Here the nominator is pushing the tired old "demos are non-notable" rationale even though the voters in the first AfD argued that the album is not really a "demo," and the admin who closed the AfD was convinced by their arguments. If you don't like the outcome of a previous AfD it's legit to nominate again IF something has changed and IF you have something to say beyond what didn't work last time. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 19:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The no significant coverage part is what I think matters. Hekerui (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, but the nomination contains a second point that was found to be invalid.-- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 17:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - for the reasons that convinced the admin in the first AfD one month ago because the nominator has provided absolutely nothing new with this second nomination. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 19:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I'm not an administrator. I only closed the first AFD because it had been listed for 13 days with only 2 !votes, both "keep". The usual custom for "keep" closes is to wait a few months before a renomination but considering how little participation there was in the previous AFD, I can't fault Justin for the faster then normal renomination. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. Nominator is simply misrepresenting the terms of the policy he claims to cite. Lamontagne is a clearly notable artist, and there's no good reason to punch holes in his discography. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Response How can you speedy keep an unsourced article with no apparent sources? Cf. WP:V. Anything without sources is original research, which is expressly forbidden. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hullaballoo probably meant "Strong Keep" while "Speedy Keep" is a procedural matter that won't work in this case. Just like re-nominating something for AfD with no new arguments whatsoever. -- D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 16:39, 1 July 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.