Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remembrance (EP)

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 reliable references that have been uncovered during this AfD have helped prove the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remembrance (EP)[edit]

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

Previously nominated for deletion and then deleted (both by experienced admins) this article was subsequently recreated. When voting here, participants are requested to verify whether or not the sources comply with WP:RS and in depth and number. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close the nomination. All the sources are obviously reliable and they significantly cover the EP and artist, there's no reason for this article to be delete. editorEهեইдအ😎 02:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EditorE, and what are your personal criteria for suggesting that those sources are reliable? And/or that they offer sufficient, in-depth coverage? Please evaluate them here, one-by-one. You are the creator and re-creator of the article (which normally you should have made an undeletion request in the correct manner prescribed by policy). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clash, Spectrum Culture, Tiny Mix Tapes, Resident Advisor, Pitchfork and Loud and Quiet and indepedent and notable publications that have given the album full, positive reviews. Hell, Pitchfork has ben considering a leading figure in covering independent music for Christ sakes!!!!! Also, interviews of Suicideyear in Impose magazine and Loud and Quiet (the latter of which I have yet to cite in the article) further significantly display the notability of not only the album but also the artist. I shouldn't have to explain this all to you, since I really find it hard to believe that an "experienced admin" would delete an article, without reading the cited sources or even the article itself, that is far more than of stub length, and contains information from notable, reliable publications as you should've seen in the citation section. Deleting an article like this at all was a ridiculous move in the first place, and a cause of terrible judgement from an admin who, judging by his actions taken towards this article, should not have and does not deserve an admin position, and that's an opinion, mind you. Sorry to be so bitter here, but articles about notable subjects for nonsensical reasons like this are becoming a problem based on my experiences. editorEهեইдအ😎 02:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an Administrator Review. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 05:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Info: Previous CSD A9 notification in Diff of User talk:EditorE. Deletion log here. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough of the sources are reliable, and the coverage in those is sufficiently in-depth. --Michig (talk) 06:02, 9 August 2016 (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.