Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry and the Potters' split 7" with the Zambonis

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 Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry and the Potters' split 7" with the Zambonis

The subject "fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" as the article shows no evidence that the topic is notable per WP:MUSIC which states "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines.", WP:N states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is no evidence of such coverage within the article. Guest9999 (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose / Support if.. Hello. I have submitted this article for a peer review and a second is in the process, I am however considering "merging" the articles into one article, as suggested by User:Ruhrfisch at Wikipedia:Peer review/Harry and the Potters' split 7" with the Zambonis/archive2 but I am waiting for an example of such an article, if you could provide me with one I may be somewhat supportive of this, only if I like the outcome. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article shows no evidence of its notability in line with WP:MUSIC. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. Cloudz679, can you please find an example of an article with several albums and EPs on it? If so I may become supportive in the deletion of this article. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. PKT (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of media coverage. Addhoc (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this subject is sufficently covered in one sentence, which already exists in the band's article. Dgf32 (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Can someone please find an example of an article with several albums and EPs on it? If so I may become supportive in the deletion of this article. I would really appreciate if someone could help this time, so the deletion process can be closed. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please help me with my question. I have also asked Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music and am waiting for a reply. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or redirect to Harry and the Potters discography. As per the music notability guideline which states that "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. It's technically not an album per se and there hasn't been a lot of media coverage, so it might not have enough notability to merit an actual article. If so, then a redirect should be sufficient enough.--TBC !?! 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key word there is "may", there is no evidence of notability through significant coverage by reliable, independent sources in the article and none has been presented during the course of this discussion. WP:MUSIC clearly states "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines", this requires objective evidence. Guest9999 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence my recommendation of a redirect.--TBC !?! 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TBC. y'am'can (wtf?) 15:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Guest9999 (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: utterly non-notable fan-drivelly-thing :-) —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. No longer in print (according to lead) and not a notable subject in the first place. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 21:33, 2 March 2008 (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.