Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Sad Day on Pluto

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. --John (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Sad Day on Pluto

A Sad Day on Pluto (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails Wikipedia standards for verifiability and notability as per WP:MUSIC, appears to contain only original research. I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
*weak keep A simple Google search will show you that it doesn't fail WP:V or WP:NDusti^{talk to me} 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Comment I recommed that this is speedy kept, and I have tagged the article for references, that is the only thing in my opinion that is wrong with the article. Dusti^{talk to me} 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

   I have changed my view from a speedy keep to a weak keep. In my opinion, and maybe its wrong, if you see at least two or more sources, then your going to have an argument on notablility and verifibility. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

   Comment: Two or more "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." The only reference in the article is a series of posts in an online forum.  RGTraynor  18:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Judging from this AfD, the band doesn't appear to be notable. Therefore, their album isn't, either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Notability is not inherited. Likewise, non-notability is not inherited. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 01:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • A flawed analogy; it would be difficult for a prominent work to have been created by someone deemed insignificant.  RGTraynor  03:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: A simple Google search yields 44 hits, the most popular of which are the Wikipedia articles themselves, the band's label, myspace, and some obscure record dealers. They album has only been reviewed by a few obscure sources.I feel like a tourist (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I looked at Dustihowe's Google search, and I looked at mine and in either case, I can't find any resources that are 3rd party and provide anything more than a place to download, order, or just a quick blurb announcing it as a new release. Verifiable, perhaps, but not notable. -Verdatum (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Delete per nom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and others. Fails WP:V Pigman☿ 21:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Wow, how did I know this was another article about someone's band.... Mandsford (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: A meager 29 unique hits on this non-notable album. Article created by an SPA whose sole Wikipedia contributions involve a group already up for AfD and a singer no longer with the band who is also up for AfD.  RGTraynor  00:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC there are not many reliable sources about the band or album either Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 01:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• An I stand corrected Delete Digging through Google searches and unable to find the above mentions from Verdatum and RGTraynor, there are no reliable sources. Dusti^{speak and be heard!} 17:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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.