Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trophy Night


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Trophy Night

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NALBUMS. "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. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting."  The information would (at present) badly disrupt the flow of the Weddings Parties Anything article, there's no discography page, and WP:NALBUMS does not support a delete/redirect in these circumstances.  A discography page should be created to merge this into (along with the other similar WPA albums), but that's sadly not something that can be mandated during the AfD process. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Discographies aren't dumping grounds for the contents of redirected album pages, I know it says that (probably needs to be reworded), but it does not mean copy and paste the article into a specially created discography page. The releases should obviously be listed, but if they are only a track listing, then it is pointless to tell someone to do this - track listings aren't permitted to be in discographies. kiac.  ( talk - contrib ) 12:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One point I want to mention: MOS:DISCOG is a proposal not a policy. There isn't and to the best of my knowledge never has been any consensus to exclude tracklistings from discographies. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, whilst trying hard not to be too cynical, I find it hard to believe that the nominator can not find significant coverage for the album. The article includes a link to Allmusic which is a strating point.  The album is signficant as it was the last album by the band before they broke up in 1998. Dan arndt (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, not being able to find significant coverage seems like a very odd reason to delete a page. The recent edits by Dan arndt appear to illustrate the album's notability; an extensive review by Allmusic and McFarlane's Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop appear to support an album which already passed WP:NALBUMS. kiac.  ( talk - contrib ) 12:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 12:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Very odd reason? Being by a notable musician doesn't make an album automatically notable. Joe Chill (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep per Kiac.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above reasons. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:28, 9 November 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.