Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suitcase 3: Up We Go Now


 * 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.  Jujutacular  T · C 00:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Suitcase 3: Up We Go Now

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Song that has no indication of notability. Fails WP:NSONG Shirik (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 12:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As an officially released album by a notable band, this would generally have "sufficient notability" to have an independent article. It further satisfies WP:NALBUMS becuase there is non-trivial coverage for this compilation at the following: .  Gongshow  Talk 21:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the above sources to the article. It's still not terribly long, but I don't see that it fails WP:NALBUMS in any way.  Gongshow  Talk 01:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep.  Per gong.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep also per Gongshow.  fetch  comms  ☛ 03:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep commercially-released box set by a very notable band. Professionally reviewed.  I don't see the problem here. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:58, 20 December 2009 (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.