Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Matrix (album)
- 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. Per nom's indef block as a sock and WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Matrix (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This album did not chart and has not received enough adequate coverage from reliable, third-party sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. One MTV reference does not equate to notability. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable
and nominated by a suspected sockpuppetbecause it was their debut album and helped to launch their careers. A young Katy Hudson was also on many of the songs in the album. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument not only fails WP:ITSNOTABLE, but you should assume good faith despite (as yet unfounded) accusations outside of the AFD environment. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your amended comment is still not policy-based, which sparks serious doubt in your nomination. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't nominate it, you did. I'm going to add more now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your amended comment is still not policy-based, which sparks serious doubt in your nomination. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The page supplys useful information and contains accurate sources. ~ Themonkeyofdoom (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The group is notable, and enough information [1][2][3] exists about the album to create a reasonably detailed article; appears to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 18:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep see comment above from Gongshow --SveroH (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems to satisfy WP:GNG, shown by Gongshow's sources. Mah favourite (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.