Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Lawson (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 no consensus. Due to lack of participation, no prejudice against renomination in the future. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Jamie Lawson (album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be a non-notable album: given it's title not worth converting to a redirect.TheLongTone (talk) TheLongTone (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This album meets Wikipedia's criteria for a notable album:

''An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline. 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.''

It is indisputable that Jamie Lawson is to be considered a 'notable musician'. This article does meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, as all 5 entries on the list can be checked. This article currently includes more than just a basic track listing, with charting information and other release information to be added after the release date of October 9 2015.

HeyJude70 (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2015
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep for now because News found a few links and I would've honestly suggested redirecting to the artist regardless of the title as it may still be applicable. I suggest maybe keeping because it hasn't been released yet so... SwisterTwister   talk  06:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:17, 3 October 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.