Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strange Symmetry


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Strange Symmetry

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fail WP:NALBUM, specifically non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is absent. Polyamorph (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Polyamorph (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - would say redirect, except for the persistence of recreation. Fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:NALBUM.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: The sources in the article, including Spectrum Culture, are reliable. I also found a few more reliable sources, which talk about the article:, , , , and .. It has a brief description in a Pitchfork article. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM.  ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Extensive coverage is required for albums. Per WP:NALBUM if the article cannot be expanded beyond a stub it should redirect to the artist. There is simply not enough reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. Polyamorph (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , criterion 1 of WP:NALBUM states that an album is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. The EP has received coverage from AllMusic, Spectrum Culture, Sputnik Music, Treblezine, Seattle Weekly, Exclain, Blurt and Clash magazines. Therefore, the EP meets the said criterion and there's good enough sources which make it notable. I have explained more than enough. And I won't respond to this post again. My keep stands. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NALBUM also states Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography. Polyamorph (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Astig. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not so much a question of the sources being reliable (although several are dubious in that regard) and more whether they represent extensive coverage to justify an independent article, per WP:NALBUM. Polyamorph (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Who cares what you think? It definitely meets WP:NALBUM with enough sources presented above. SBKSPP (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would hope that the closing admin would "care" about my thoughts. Polyamorph (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per the additional sources added by ​which establish notability. The article isn't a stub, and passes WP:GNG, so I disagree with the idea that it is too short to warrant a separate article. NemesisAT (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets Nalbum.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2021 (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.