Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Smashing Pumpkins 1991–1998


 * 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   merge to The Smashing Pumpkins discography. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Smashing Pumpkins 1991–1998

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I wasn't feeling especially hopeful after reading this on the article page:
 * This release was allegedly limited to a pressing of 1,000 copies.
 * I was unable to find any reviews. But, I found a website stating that its release was limited to radio stations.  Also found a website featuring a very heavy analysis of the cover's specific artwork. According to WP:NALBUMS the fact that Smashing Pumpkins is a notable band AND independent coverage of the album merits keeping the article. Also, they have too many albums to merge into their main article.  For it to become a Keep, reviews or some other substantial independent sources about the album must be sought.  I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Per the above sources/rationale.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to The Smashing Pumpkins discography, at least until there is something more substantive to warrant its own article. Otherwise, there is only one thing of note here, which can better be mentioned in the discog article. –MuZemike 05:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to one of the many other articles related to the band. Being a notable band does not make everything they touched notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:20, 24 July 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.