Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarred for Life


 * 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. WP:NPASR. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Scarred for Life

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable EP. Alex Douglas (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC) No reliable sources found to verify notability. The source it references is a dead link, the other is liner notes. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 04:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find significant coverage for this EP in independent reliable sources; fails WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow  Talk 18:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The album was released by a notable musician. "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." This album cites a newspaper, and the linear notes of the album. As stated, it was released by a notable artist, and all the info is correct, what more is need?--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note, the use of the words "generally" and "may". Being an EP by a notable band, doesn't guarantee it as notable... What more is needed -- significant coverage for this EP in independent reliable sources, as per WP:NALBUMS. The liner notes are not independent sources. The newspaper article does not significantly cover the EP (from what I remember of it); the article is dead -- it no longer exists on the internet -- try and look for another link or for it in print. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, how many cites would make this "better"?--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a defined number, but its also to do with the 'quality' of the sources: they must be reliable secondary sources (that is, independent of the subject) that address the subject directly in detail. For example, a review by Rolling Stone of the album. Alex Douglas (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.