Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monstercat Uncaged Vol. 4


 * 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 15:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Monstercat Uncaged Vol. 4

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article currently does not satisfy the requirements set by WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG; contains no sources and no known reliable coverage exists. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:2993:8646:CE13:27D9 (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I completed the nomination for the IP. ansh 666 06:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 11:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - I am compelled to point out WP:NEXIST, as the nominator says the article contains no sources. But that is not a reason to delete in itself because sources could possibly exists but nobody has put them in the article yet. With that being said, this album has been listed at many electronic music sites but has not received coverage beyond its basic existence, so there really are no possibilities beyond WP:ROUTINE for this album. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 14:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Here is why but first a comment. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:2993:8646:CE13:27D9 You do realize that you are being a hipocrite right? You contributed heavily to the page and then you decide to nominate it for deletion? That is hypocritical. I am appalled at this. Please consider this when deciding. My reasoning for keeping this is that yes it is a small article, but it is also in the stub category. It is being worked on. Thanks for considering! (User Page Here! | Chat With Me!):) -Modded
 * Comment - Admins may want to look into the argument between two users as mentioned in the above vote. Meanwhile, there are three previous volumes in this Monstercat series and those all have their own articles that are much better sourced than this one. Perhaps this is what the above voter is presently working on. But I will point out that even though the articles on the previous volumes have many sources, most of those are about the bands and/or their songs, as opposed to coverage of the compilation album itself, and that is probably what will happen to the article for this volume too. Compilation albums like these need to be noticed in their own right, and notability for a compilation is not inherited from the artists/songs therein. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 17:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 14:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm not seeing any reliable source coverage to meet the WP:GNG here. Most hits are social media, tracklist databases, and music/video streaming websites. Sergecross73   msg me  15:39, 17 April 2018 (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.