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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 19:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Jonas (album)

[edit]

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

Per NMG. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

–Chase (talk / contribs) 01:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three, with redirects to the kid's article. Not notable. If that changes in the future, we can easily recreate. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the song articles, but the album has been reviewed by Allmusic, that makes it more than a frivolous promo thing, even if it didn't chart. Hekerui (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist note: I've closed the songs as delete, but there's room for a bit more discussion on the album. --j⚛e decker ^talk 03:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could only find brief passing mentions of the album; nothing like the sort of in-depth coverage required to meet the standards at WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Nicholas Jonas is already a redirect to the artiste, so not much value in having Nicholas Jonas (album) do the same, may as well just get rid. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The artist (now known as Nick Jonas) is clearly notable, and Google News/Books searches show coverage of the initial release by sources like AllMusic. As WP:OSE declare, "In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items"; such selective deletion undermines "the purpose of Wikipedia being a comprehensive reference." This would become the only entry in Jonas' discography without an independent article, and as his debut album the gap would be conspicuous. MaranoFan (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - while this first solo effort appears to have been a dud, the artist is now one of the top singers in the world. Our readers will likely look for this article. Should we perhaps stubbify or find a good merger target? Bearian (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (possibly redirect until someone wants to write the article). So far as I can tell the only argument for keeping it is that it's by Nick Jonas - in other words people are claiming wp:INHERITED. Which is not only on the list of arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion, it's explicitly called out in wp:NALBUM. Notability hasn't clearly been established so this is indicative of a delete vote. On the other hand there is the allmusic review. And I'm going to suggest it is highly unlikely there won't be a page on it in one of his biographies (although have no intention of actually reading one of them). Neonchameleon (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2014 (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.