Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various Failures
- 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Various Failures (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)
The only notable publications on this I can find are an Allmusic review and a brief mention in a CMJ 'record news' section. I'm doubtful that that substantiates Wikipedia-notability. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A quick search found three lenghty reviews, which I've now added as refs into the article. At worst, redirect to Swans discography, but this should meet WP:GNG. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge to Swans discography. Either way, this is encyclopedic content and should be kept somewhere. --Michig (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Has secondary sources, compilation albums are still notable.--Soul Crusher (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A delete would be extremely rare as the band has a lengthy main article and WP:NALBUM instructions redirects if the album (sub-article) does not meet the guideline. Mkdwtalk 06:37, 6 March 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.