Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/More of Our Stupid Noise (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) Captain Galaxy (talk) 08:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

More of Our Stupid Noise
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

*DELETE - FAILS notability Trawnabrah8765309 (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Very obvious keep- WP:GNG states that there should be significant coverage from multople independent reliable sources. Refs 1 and 3 fit in to this category, so it obviously passes GNG.  Username 6892 00:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 13.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 02:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Full disclosure, I'm the original creator of this, but I did so in 2007 at a time when our notability standard for albums was very different than it is today — at the time, the only notability test a compilation album had to pass was that it had notable artists on it, which this obviously does. That's not the standard anymore, however; albums now have to have much more significant notability claims than that, and much better sourcing to support those claims, than they had to have 13 years ago. So I'm not particularly wedded to the idea that it has to stay, because even as the creator I'm not fully convinced that it actually passes the stricter standards of 2020 anymore. That said, I've been kickin' around this joint for over 15 years now, and I've learned a few things about suspicious behaviour: the nominator is a brand new account, registered literally within the past 24 hours, and initiating this discussion was literally their very first Wikipedia contribution ever. That's just not a thing brand new users do, especially on fairly niche topics (like obscure 20-year-old compilation albums) that the average person is unlikely to even have heard of in the first place, unless they have some form of preexisting agenda to erase a topic from Wikipedia due to a personal vendetta. I don't know if it's personal beef with one of the bands on the record, or with somebody who worked at Squirtgun Records, or a sockpuppet attempt at retaliating against the deletion of a different personal pet topic — but it's definitely something that's outside of Wikipedia's concern, because new users (a) don't just find pages like this unless they were specifically looking for them, and (b) don't generally know our notability policies from a hole in the ground. I just don't buy that you're on the level, brah — you've got some kind of ulterior motive here. Bearcat (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bearcat (even if he didn't explicitly write that). Also an AllMusic review, at just a glance.  Successful enough in Canada that more sources likely exist.  Right at that print/internet '90s divide, so always more difficult to research. Caro7200 (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep In addition to the article referenced from Edmonton in the article, I can find a lot of coverage in nation-wide newspapers at the time of the original release. But the article in 2016 barely pushes it over the line, to having some lasting meaning. Nfitz (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has sources, which is pretty good considering the state of the internet at the time. However, I don't expect the article to expand much further. And it was a fine compilation, if I recall (although this shouldn't influence much on any verdict here). + m t  23:28, 14 June 2020 (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.