Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live at Angkor Wat (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 keep. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  01:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Live at Angkor Wat
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. First, it should be noted that the article was nominated for deletion (for unclear reasons) three years ago and the result was Keep. The reader is referred to the previous AfD page, for the strong and clear-cut evidence provided therein.


 * It is not clear how another AfD arose for the exact same page, nor is there any justification for that.


 * Additionally, not a single reason exists to delete the article. The notability box at the top of the article was added by one user, without a bit of discussion (there's none on the article's talk page), without any reasoning and contrary to WP rules.


 * The article is about a release by Placebo, a highly notable band, with an entire, well-developed "article space" devoted to them (discography, albums, singles, other releases, members, former members, etc.). All of those articles fulfill the WP guidelines, including references to external, independent sources writing on the subject.


 * To be certain, all WP guidelines are unequivocally met. The article satisfies all of them and more:


 * 1) Its subject is notable.
 * 2) It is part of a series of articles, encompassing a chronological progression, which all need to exist, side by side, for the reader to be able to receive complete information on the subject.
 * 3) It is easy for the reader to understand exactly what the article is about and how to reach it. If the reader is not interested in the subject, there is no reason they will encounter the article. However, if the reader is interested in the subject, they need the article and will be interested in the information it provides.
 * 4) The article has existed on Wikipedia for over four years now, helping readers get the information they require and not generating any notability issues, except for one "notability box" added mistakenly by only one user, without any discussion and contrary to WP rules.
 * 5) Last but not least, the article is referenced with external sources, unrelated and independent from the band. Those sources have written about the article's subject. Additional sources, if necessary, can easily and quickly be added.


 * In summary, the article fully satisfies the notability guidelines. It seems that even mentioning a possible deletion of the article was simply a misunderstanding, caused by not attending to the fact that the article is notable and does reference to external, independent sources. The article provides readers, both new and well-acquainted with the subject, the knowledge they need, in an organized, informative manner. It should certainly be kept. A.R. (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Release by a highly notable band. I see no benefit from deletion. --Michig (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep unlike too many musicians with articles, Placebo's notability is abundantly clear. A release like this by such a notable band is notable. MLA (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2016 (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.