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) –Davey2010^Talk 01:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10 Years (Armin van Buuren album)[edit]

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

Fails NALBUM. (there's currently no RS so fails GNG) Widefox; talk 09:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I made a good-faith effort to throw in some sources to keep this article alive long enough to make more substantive changes. So here you go with another deletion attempt? One of the two sources I provided demonstrates that this album charted on Billboard in 2006, thus it does satisfy WP:NALBUM. Here's another NALBUM-qualifying source, a magazine article this time. Please, please, please find proof of an actual CoI sock-puppet conspiracy before continuing this crusade. And even then, give us non-sock editors a chance to improve these articles WP:BEFORE trying to kill them. Metadox (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which source? and what part of WP:NALBUM? I see AllMusic (basically a tracklisting), and Beatfactor (a promo interview). In what way is that meeting NALBUM? It fails WP:GNG (crappy sources). Widefox; talk 13:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"crusade" and "kill" are quite emotive. Please can you refrain and give some indication you can follow civil behaviour here per WP:AFD, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjunadeep). Widefox; talk 13:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The AllMusic source, if you go to the "Awards" tab, is the source for this album charting, which I believe covers point 2 of WP:NALBUM. Beatfactor doesn't qualify for that—as you say, a promotional interview—I cited it because it was the best source I could find backing up the statements in the article's lede. I don't know enough German to judge the quality of the Virtual Nights source I gave here, but I think it's independent anyway and goes toward NALBUM. To be honest I'm not confident this article will end up being kept, but I've got it on my list of "trance articles Widefox thinks have been spammed by CoI sockpuppets" that I plan to give a good scrubbing over the next week or so. But it frustrates me when, after tracking down a couple of quick sources in order to justify un-prod-ing the article while I give it more work, it gets a second deletion request right away. So while you say WP:GNG, I say WP:NEXIST. I'm not as experienced with Wikipedia but I believe the statement "there's currently no RS so fails GNG" is not in keeping with NEXIST. Metadox (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The music notability guidelines do state that notability is not inherited by albums, so merging into van Buuren's main page might be a solution, but I don't think it's necessary. Van Buuren is a sufficiently major figure in trance that his releases should be considered notable, as each one probably contains at least one song that received extensive play. Roches (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the problems this article ran into was its failure to explicitly state the source of its notability (i.e., appearance on two national album charts). I added that to the article. I also restated the information sourced to an interview so that it is now presented as exact quotes, and not as a synthesis of the artist's statements. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2015 (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.