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 merge to Morbid Angel. In lieu of deletion, and as a theoretically possible search term. I don't think the mention will overwhelm the band's article. Shimeru 07:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abominations of Desolation

[edit]
Abominations of Desolation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for albums. Neelix (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does it pass the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject with one all music link? Off2riorob (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Also WP:STUB allows short articles with minimal references if there is a possibility that editors will expand the article someday. (There is no deadline.) What SummerPhD said above is also supported by the Wikipedia Albums Project. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
stub and will improve later..this album was released in 1986, a quarter of a century ago, suggesting it is going to jump up and become more notable and that it is a work in progress is a large step in faith indeed. The album does not meet the general notability guidelines at all, not as a stub and not as a work in progress. Also if the wikipedia albums project believes that all albums from any wikipedia notable band are to be kept then policy should reflect that and it doesn't, does it? It appears to say that all albums should independently meet the GNG. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off2riorob: While I have voted differently than you, I admit that you have made very good points about policy and practice. But note that in Wikipedia terms there is a subtle difference between a "policy" and a "guideline" and examples of each are at play here. The thing about the Albums Project supporting articles for all albums by notable artists is more of a precedent that has developed over time, and it's a relatively loose guideline that allows more flexibility than a stringent policy. So this is a good example of an AfD debate in which these loose guidelines are allowing some differences in opinion. If the ultimate consensus here is to delete, so be it, but at least we can be flexible as a group. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, flexibility is a good thing, people like it and it gets a fair few views and its not harming anyone, my only issue really is that under guidelines it is a delete. No worries, I may go to the guideline and try to alter it to reflect practice, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just note that altering a guideline should probably be preceded by a lot of discussion on the associated talk page. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was under the impression that a relisted entry means everyone should relist their votes. My mistake. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how those two sources do not pass WP:NOTABILITY? They are significant coverage (sources address the subject directly in detail, which they do), reliable (sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, both Allmusic and Amazon are privately edited, and I have not seen evidence that either Amazon or Allmusic are not considered reliable sources), sources (for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability, which these are; Multiple sources are generally expected., there are two), independent of the subject (excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject, neither of these are directly linked with the band, their label, etc), and regarding presumed, as far as I'm aware it does not violate WP:NOT. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2010 (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.
More