Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music from The 3D Concert Experience


 * 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. Or, more precisely, no consensus on what to do with the article. There is a clear consensus not to delete. Whether or not to redirect can be dealt with in the ordinary editorial way. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Music from The 3D Concert Experience

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Does not meet the general notability guideline. Enough information already present at Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience, so a delete or a redirect is most likely the best solution. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 21:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the article mentioned above by Pokerdance. it's an important part of the band's history, but not enough for outsiders to get an article.--camr nag 23:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This soundtrack should have its own page i can find the info just u wait —Preceding unsigned comment added by King007ofrock (talk • contribs) 01:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment directed to King007ofrock: no, it really shouldn't. The album may meet notability requirements per WP:NALBUMS, but it does not meet the general notability guideline, as I have already stated. There might be reliable information independent of the source that I have somehow missed, but if you weren't willing to cite the references from the start, then you were pretty much asking for this article to be nominated for deletion. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 01:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. King007ofrock, maybe you are confused. the reason the article needs to deleted is notability, not lack of information.--camr nag 19:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How does it not meet notability? Rlendog (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Redirect per Camr. Ray  Talk 23:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was originally inclined to 1vote redirect. But the subject meets WP:NSONGS, since it charted, making top 10 in at least two countries, and was #1 on the US soundtrack chart..  Allmusic even has a article about the soundtrack, which I am surprised wasn't uncovered during WP:BEFORE and which could be used as one source to expand the article.  And if I found that source in a few seconds, it seems likely that there are even more.  So I don't see any valid deletion reason here. Rlendog (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And here is a review in Entertainment Weekly, so there are now multiple sources with significant coverage, meeting WP:N. Rlendog (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And another review:. Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not another review - it's just a copy of the allmusic.com review. --Zundark (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I did not notice that. But that still leaves two independent reviews and several top 10 charts to demonstrate notability. Rlendog (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the article. Does not meet the general notability guideline. Enough information already present at Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience. Dennissell (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How does it not meet the general notability guideline when there is significant coverage in several independent reliable sources? Not to mention its chart position. Rlendog (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And what do you mean by "Enough information already present at Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience", and what does that have to do with the notability of this article? The only information about the soundtrack at Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience is an inforbox (that better belongs in the soundtrack article), a track listing, release date and a partial chart listing. How does that qualify as "enough", when there are multiple reliabile sources that provide additional information? Rlendog (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like this !vote was just copied from the original nom, without regard for the intervening discussion. Rlendog (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The album was clearly notable so it deserves its own Wikipedia article.--Pink Bull (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep In addition to passing WP:NSONGS, there are multiple reliable sources (provided by Rlendog) that discuss this album. WP:GNG and WP:V are easily met. Cunard (talk) 05:28, 4 August 2009 (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.