Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Odd Future Tape


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The Odd Future Tape

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Mixtape that fails WP:NALBUM. Though there are listings on both Billboard and AMG, neither has a review of this album, and the album has never charted.  ArcAngel    (talk) ) 07:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The review and Discogs link are added. L Trey (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  —Michaela den (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel    (talk) ) 23:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)



keep whilst I'm not really a fan, this band is really popular with many young people. the recent Australian tours had large crowds and there was a lot of debate over the band. I'll search for some articles. I noticed pitchfork is already in the references - don't you consider them a RS? as I understand it, this band has become wildly popular without major media press coverage - they've used download sites and their blog and word of mouth. it's one of the modern success stories (or perhaps a return to the old days pre-PR / pay for coverage media?). so I'm not sure there'll be much coverage of this tape, but in future I think people will look back and say it was one of the most successful to use this model. in this modern world. this is the main reason I'll work on this article and try find some sources Kathodonnell (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I found some reviews/articles on Pitchfork, XXL Magazine, LA Weekly. and some blogs/music sites. I've added them as inline refs to the article. (also moved the reviews from infobox to "Reception" section as per infobox page). so, yes, my decision is keep for this article Kathodonnell (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ  (t)   (e)  17:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not an over-abundance of coverage but a significant release from a notable group with some coverage in reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2011 (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.