Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twistable Turnable Man


 * 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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Twistable Turnable Man

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to a one line article with no relevance of article presented, no content, and context, and references are not provided... Ajayupai95 (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for a couple of reasons:
 * Shel Silverstein rocks (technically not a WP-approved keep rationale, but it needs to be said)
 * I'm not an AFD regular, so I'm nt sure about this, but just googling "twistable turnable man review" brings up reviews in LA Times, AllMusic, and NYDailyNews. Doesn't that meet WP:Notability (albums)? Significant independent coverage in reliable sources?
 * Maybe give the author more than half an hour to build up the article before AFD'ing it (although I do appreciate your not using CSD).
 * --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep There is already an in-depth review from the Los Angeles Times as a reference, and the Google News Archives show extensive coverage in reliable sources.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  05:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. As noted, the article now contains LA Times and Allmusic reviews; much more coverage is out there - e.g., . While the article clearly could use expansion, the record meets WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS.  Gong   show  08:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The album has received plenty of in-depth, independent coverage in reliable sources (some of which are now included in the article), so meets WP:NALBUM. — sparklism hey! 09:31, 26 February 2013 (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.