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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy (Rockets album)[edit]

Galaxy (Rockets album) (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)

Unsourced article with no substantive information. No evidence that it meets WP:NALBUM guidelines. Jimmysquirrelpants (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hasn't charted anywhere. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep On the contrary, the single Galactica went to #1 of the national charts in Italy and the album went platinum in 1980. At least inform yourself if you're going to have an opinion. http://www.lesrockets.com/p_flashback8_13b.jpg 87.13.127.127 (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, while I cannot find independent evidences of the single "Galactica" going #1, I found evidences of the album we are discussing going platinum and selling over 1 million copies in a Corriere della Sera article I just added to the page (the same article also describes the album as "legendary"). While weakly charting albums could be certainly redirect to their parent articles, an album by a major band which was so successful appears to be certainly notable enough for a separate article. Cavarrone 18:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NALBUM criterion #2 at the very least, per Cavarrone's source. There's still room for improvement on sourcing for the album's platinum status, but there's enough here now for the article to stay. --Finngall ^talk 19:13, 7 November 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.