Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Think You Got the Clean Version


 * 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. Nakon 01:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I Think You Got the Clean Version

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustain an article. Fails general notability and WP:NALBUMS. Jbh (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable Dethcentrik album with plenty of reliable coverage. --BusyWikipedian (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - — BusyWikipedian (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Jbh (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read through my contributions rather than simply accepting this statement-BusyWikipedian (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, when I looked at your contributions all I saw were edits related to Død Beverte who is a member of Dethcentrik and Død Incarnate Records including the Deathcentric albums which are not even remotly near passing WP:NALBUM. I should have looked deeper. Striking SPA and will do so at the other AfDs related to Deathcentric. Jbh (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I see two reviews from reliable sources in the article. —Torchiest talkedits 20:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment To be specific WP:NALBUMS requires significant non-trivial coverage in RS. Having the album chart on a national chart (in the US that is one based on Nielson's Soundscan), be nominated for a major award (ie Grammy or equivalent). The Brutal Resonance link does not link to a source and the Sideline source is a trivial review. This does not add up to significant coverage even if both sources listed were good. Jbh (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out that the Brutal Resonance link was broken. I searched the site, found the review, and have recited with the proper, up to date link-BusyWikipedian (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: I fail to see how the two reviews don't constitute as significant coverage. Per WP:GNG, two sources of non-trivial coverage (which reviews usually are) are enough. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2015 (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.