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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gallow Hill (Abigail Williams EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article fails notability criteria for albums. Bootlegs are generally non-notable and no source contradicts this. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete This should've been deleted long ago, but even my past attempt was persuaded by the addition of one sad source. Fortunately, I think the language at WP:NALBUMS is better, and the argument for deleting this page is stronger. For one, this album was not released, and according to WP:NALBUMS, unreleased albums are non-notable unless they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. In general, all albums should be mentioned in multiple reliable sources. One single published source doesn't cut it, and this bootleg isn't mentioned in a significant number of sources online. I oppose a merge also simply because, although there's a track listing, the album itself is non-notable—not notable enough to have the track list/infobox/album cover shown on the Abigail Williams (band) article, though obviously the source can probably be used to mention the bootleg in passing, were someone so inclined to add it. Finally—WP:NALBUMS mentions this for songs, but I believe it must be used in this case—"[an article is] appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", and I think that it's been proven that this article will never grow beyond a stub and will never contain enough information to warrant an even remotely interesting piece of encyclopedia. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage for this demo/unofficial release; does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. The reference in the article is a brief sentence which can be incorporated into the band's main article.  Gongshow ^Talk 18:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the info to the AW article. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:25, 6 June 2011 (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.