Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Good Time


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Real Good Time

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability, article based on a a few reviews *form some pretty unimportant sources as far as I can tell) and chart listings. Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 13:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 *  Keep or redirect - Multiple reliable in-depth sources. If this article cannot be kept, then it should be redirected to Aaron Watson. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It was a redirect, which you chose to turn into an article. And I do not agree that the sources you have added are indepth analyses if the record. They seem mostly to be about the artist.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)\
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 14:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per improvements. Album charted on three major charts, at least three reputable reviews found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Charting is not enough (especially in niche charts), it must still meet our wider notabilty rules, and being mentioned in a chart (even in the top 5 of the US top 100) is not significant coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Charting alone isn't enough, no, but generally, anything that is able to chart in a country's all-format chart, especially a major one like the Billboard 200, is generally going to get enough coverage to meet the bare-bones of the WP:GNG. It's not a guarantee, but it is a relatively good indicator, which is why people make assertions like this. Sergecross73   msg me  19:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't actually understand the basis for this nomination, since albums by bluelinked musicians are kept generally. The "chronology" section of the infox for musicians is otherwise interrupted. Nom needs to explain how deleting this article will enhance the experience of our readership. Herostratus (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  J  947  (c · m)  02:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.  J  947  (c · m)  02:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- HindWikiConnect 02:38, 21 December 2017 (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.