Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kokuhaku (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   keep. A merge discussion may take place at the appropriate talk page if necessary. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Kokuhaku (album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. No RS. Tyros1972 Talk 12:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. It should be merged into the article of the artist (chatmonchu) as per WP:NALBUMS. Citrusbowler  (talk) (contribs) (email me)  13:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  20:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  20:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am still not certain of where to draw the line for album notability, but here are some facts: 1) This album did peak at number 2 on the Oricon album chart and is the band's highest charting album so far (along with Seimeiryoku); 2) it was certified as a gold album ; 3) there are quite a number of seemingly independent and significant RS on the album (with both interviews:, , , ; and reviews: , , , etc.). I am not that familiar with the music press, so I cannot judge all of these, but there does seem to be considerable coverage. Michitaro (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - 1. It was certified gold and peaked at number 2, 2. it has received coverage in reliable sources, in particular, the Excite.co.jp interview. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  17:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Since I don't see any discussion arguing against the RS and information I found, I will judge the sources sufficient to satisfy notability. Michitaro (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to Michitaro's sources and informations. Cavarrone  06:52, 30 June 2013 (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.