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. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next Level (George Acosta album)

[edit]

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

This article is entirely composed of an infobox, a track list, and a credits section. There is no lead section or any actual sentences, and the references are sparse with the two working references existing in the Credit section. There's nothing that would lead me to believe that the album is notable. Sorafune +1 04:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the nominator has actually listed reasons for expanding this article. A problem with article quality is not a reason for deletion - that is what edit tags and stub tags are for. (I have added a rudimentary intro.) With that being said, I agree that there is little out there to support notability, but there appears to be some. The album has been reviewed at AllMusic and that review is already linked in the infobox, so that adds a little bit of notability. Also, per precedent, the artist's article has (so far) passed the test of notability so that helps the album articles to a certain extent. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 04:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wine Guy~Talk 11:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: George Acosta himself appears to be notable and prolific, and this album seems to be available at the usual outlets - eg [1], [2]. I think it just needs expanding. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Notable in that it was released by a notable artist on a notable label, and there do seem to be sources (including an Allmusic review). Serviceable enough of a stub. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:44, 22 February 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.