Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Introduction to... Elliott Smith

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. The nominator agrees in their nomination that the subject has had significant coverage, and therefore fails to advance an argument for deletion. No comments in support of deletion. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An Introduction to... Elliott Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

while it has been covered by numerous notable publications, I feel the article doesn't establish the importance or significance that would make it worthy of an article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm a bit confused by your nomination. Are you suggesting it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources but fails inclusion guidelines for some other reason? Stalwart111 08:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Proceedural keep. How the article is currently written isn't really a reason to delete in and of itself. There are multiple sources out there that show notability, such as Metacritic showing 11 reviews for the album. If an article isn't fleshed out enough, flesh it out. If you really believe that the article would be better merged into the main article for Elliott Smith, then it would be better to propose a merge and hash it out there. WP:MERGE gives a good set of directions on how to start proposing a merger. AfD isn't really a good venue for this particular album. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly notable, deficiencies in the article are a matter for editing, not deletion. --Michig (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2013 (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.