Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosy Maze


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Rosy Maze

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of notability. The closest to WP:SIGCOV a search for sources reveals is, and thus even WP:AGW with the print article this does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG --  No COBOL  (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The artist has an eight record discography that are all linked chronologically and Rosy Maze is right in the middle. I don't think it practical to delete this page.Paradise coyote (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of the earlier albums in that list do not have pages either, so it should not be an issue. --  No COBOL  (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Albums are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because the artist who recorded them has a Wikipedia article, or because of what order they happen to fall in within the artist's overall discography — getting reviewed in NME is certainly a start down the path toward notability, but one reliable source is not enough to get it to the finish line all by itself. An album's notability is demonstrated by contextualizing its importance, in terms of creative achievement or commercial success or award-winningness, not just by minimally verifying that it exists — but nothing stated here is evidence of importance at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete since subject fails WP:NALBUM. Wikipedia is not a depository of randomly collected information. -The Gnome (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2019 (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.