Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Made in Timeland

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) NemesisAT (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made in Timeland

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It appears there is only one source present in the article that is specifically about the album release, that being Live for Live Music which doesn't even have the album's name in it. Others cover the cancelled festival, aborted release plans, and other KG projects from around that time where the album is mentioned secondarily, but there is very little material about the album itself here. I've found zero reviews from major online publications (if someone has access to magazine archives to confirm there's nothing there either that'd help, but Album of the Year doesn't list any so I'm doubtful). QuietHere (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that there have been notices for sourcing/notability issues on the article since March. Also worth noting that those notices were added by me (which I forgot about until just now after already making this), dunno if that affects anything though. QuietHere (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wouldn't ever agree to delete a top-40 album or an album that charted in Australia, whatever the chart position, and regardless of charting not guaranteeing notability, which is always brought up as a reply to any keep nomination pointing out charting. The sourcing could be better, yes, but perhaps no user has been bothered to find any better sources. Ss112 05:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is too dependent on tidbits from the band's social media, but those can be removed easily. As a charting album this article can be expanded and cleaned up rather than deleted. Here is a possibly useful review: [1]. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Multiple charts, though I'd prefer a couple more reviews. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Charting album. I've added a review of the album (thanks to Doomsayer520) and provided some clean-up/copy editing.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NALBUM per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2022 (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.