Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radlands (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. (non-admin closure)  TheSpecialUser TSU 00:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Radlands (album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable album by barely-notable band. No indication of charting, or true significance - other than last album that a non-notable member appeared on. Could be redirected to the band page in lieu of full-out deletion, but does not meet notability requirements as a standalone article dangerous  panda  20:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Barely notable band"? Are you serious. Try typing Mystery Jets Radlands into Google and it should be obvious that this is notable, e.g. from the first two pages of results: NME review, BBC review, The Quietus review, Today article, PopMatters review. And you can add Allmusic, and Metacritic also points to a review in Mojo. And that's without really putting any effort into it. --Michig (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the article as written suggests any form of notability for this album ... feel free to fix it  dangerous  panda  21:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * But notability has been demonstrated. Your entire argument for deletion has been demonstrated to have no validity. --Michig (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep – Per WP:GNG and WP:NRVE. Topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Sigh - I have taken a whole five minutes and added the sources (above) to the article. It now meets the GNG.  Hey, does anyone else have to do a preview or have webreflinks fail?   Th e S te ve
 * Strong keep per Thesteve's updates. Thanks for putting them in. BennyHillbilly (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2012 (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.