Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Still Living


 * 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. After three relists and many sources being revealed, there is no consensus here, even among later contributors, as to whether or not the sources provided confer notability on the topic. Closing without prejudice against renomination or merging. Skomorokh 11:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It's Still Living
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find significant coverage for this album bootleg. Joe Chill (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 10:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment there is significant coverage if you look - check Allmusic or Discogs for a start - will work on populating the article with suitable references etc. Dan arndt (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  21:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 01:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Album did not chart nor did it receive significant coverage from secondary reliable sources; no indication of notability. —  Σ  xplicit 04:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 01:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Strong Keep - have provided detailed references & external links - expanded article & wikified. Dan arndt (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:NSONG, no significant coverage in external reliable sources. LK (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Undecided. Not so sure. I think the sources cited by the author could rise to the level of "significant coverage." I think more discussion on this is needed. Each of the sites cited has its own individual Wikipedia article. Additionally, each of the sites receives an enormous amount of monthly traffic in its venue.
 * However, I think that a is in order. I suggest that the author check WP:MUSICBIO and try to meet one or two of those other criterion. Artemis84 (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Have added additional references, each of which are 'notable' sources, which I believe is sufficient to justify the retention of the article. It should also be noted that this is an offical release by the band, whilst not sanctioned by the band, it was released by a major label, Virgin Records, and it is not a bootleg - therefore addressing WP:MUSICBIO (if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia). Dan arndt (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't shown notability. All that you have shown is verifablity. Just because the band is notable, doesn't mean that their albums are automatically notable. Joe Chill (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge the sourced info - and there is some - to the band's page. Not sufficiently notable for a separate page. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources review:
 * A search engine
 * An image description
 * An Amazon page
 * A record listing
 * An Allmusic page which is almost like IMDB except with music
 * A discography
 * A one sentence mention
 * Another one sentence mention
 * Ticket information
 * An overview of concert dates
 * How the heck is that significant coverage? Joe Chill (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage or other indication that this is notable. —  Jake   Wartenberg  03:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep; clearly notable. The Allmusic review alone suffices to established "significant coverage". Hesperian 03:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The album's unusual release history is soundly and sufficiently sourced. Given the structure of the band's own article, the more significant content can't be merged without unbalancing that article. Despite the nominator's claim, the album is clearly not a mere bootleg, since it was rereleased on a legit label. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge? Most of the coverage is incidental to the bootleg. I don't know WP:MUSIC very well so I'll refrain from some more confident statement. Protonk (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The Trouserpress, Salon and Allmusic citations provide genuine commentary - and have differing perspectives, views and expression, so they have not been spammed. --Philcha (talk) 08:32, 4 September 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.