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. Per WP:SNOW. This appears quite notable; some work towards expanding the article may be in order. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horror Wrestling[edit]

Per WP:NALBUMS : All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Article was PROD October 30 and removed November 2 with the rationale "If the band is notable enough for an article here, then a released album would be. If band article is deleted, then ok but it should be handled at the band article". Currently the article does nothing to establish the albums notability, currently there are no Wikipedia Policies or Guidelines that allow for a release from an artist to automatically have an article of it's own. For definitions of terms such as "significant coverage" please see WP:GNG. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an expand. Band is notable, and while that doesn't guarantee inherent notability for the album, I'd give this one the benefit of the doubt. There're two third-party reviews, and I'm sure there's more to say about this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not an expert on the policy, but I read the next line to say it should be kept: In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. This is an officially released album (not a demo, etc). My experience is that the concensus is to keep these unless it is a promo only, demo, etc. This is why I removed the PROD tag, under this assumption. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 17:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two reviews from reliable sources, and the artist being independently notable (although the band article needs sourcing) means that an article is justified. For articles like this, where the artist is notable, I feel that any concerns about the album's notability should be addressed by a merge proposal rather than nomination for deletion, if it is determined by research that there are insufficient sources to support a separate article.--Michig (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this review and this from Rolling Stone, and there are quite a few Google News hits.--Michig (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though this article is quite sparse in content, the review by Rolling Stone and the others mentioned indicate there are enough reliable sources to work off. Also, this is not just an album, this is a notable band's debut album. Even if you feel not every single album by an artist requires an entry, surely a well-referenced debut does. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously biased towards keeping it because I started the page and did most of it. Considering some of the other music pages on this site (which I won't name) are allowed to stay that are nothing more than "(SONG)" is a song by (BAND) from their (YEAR) album (ALBUM NAME), I don't see why this page wouldn't be allowed. I added the cover, a couple linked reviews, and a couple categories, and the page is farther along that many others by more "known" bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayzinSmith (talk • contribs) 22:54, 2 November 2008 (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.