Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupation: Rock Star

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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation: Rock Star

Occupation: Rock Star (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Was originally nominated as a CSD canidate, while it does not fit one of those criteria, I do feel that this album does not assert why it is notable, in addition to that it is un-referenced. —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 00:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect To Halfcocked. i ^said 00:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I'm thinking that this one should go, as well as Sell Out, The Last Star, and more than likely Halfcocked itself. None of it establishes notability. GlassCobra 00:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, sorry, I didn't see the AfDs listed above. GlassCobra 01:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep - The band Halfcocked has had an article on here for years, which probably means they are notable, which probably means their albums are notable, according to WP:MUSIC. While it's true these articles aren't much more than tracklistings, the three Halfcocked album articles up for deletion haven't exactly had much time to grow, being created only yesterday. --Bongwarrior 05:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Not true. It says that albums may have sufficient notability. It even says that if it is just a track listing, it can be merged into the main article. This seems to fit the exact situation outlined there. i ^said 06:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying I wouldn't support deletion myself a month or two down the road. As I mentioned earlier, the articles were only created yesterday. It doesn't seem to me that the best way to encourage growth beyond the tracklisting stage is to immediately nominate it for deletion. --Bongwarrior 06:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • So is there an automatic grace period? If so, then isn't the entirety of the CSD process wrong? i ^said 22:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Not automatic, no. But I think in a case such as this, where some degree of notability may be safely assumed, it's not a bad thing to give it some time to see if it can/will be improved. I'm not sure I follow you regarding the speedy deletion policies. --Bongwarrior 02:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I was the one who nominated this for speedy deletion, although at the time all that was there was a tracklist and one line of info. I'm still new to this line of wiki work and so I'm still prone to mistakes :). Personally, I don't think notability is inherited and the album should be deleted since it has no sources and no possibility for any. Seraphim ^Whipp 09:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • With Precious Roy's additions, I change my vote to keep. Seraphim ^Whipp
• Strong keep As with the band's other two albums, also up for AfD, this is an album by a notable band. The article needs work, not deletion. Precious Roy 13:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There is nothing that can be done to improve these articles. Please don't be offended, but all you've added is an AMG rating which can easily go in the artist article. There are no references in the articles and no sources that exist to improve this article. Seraphim ^Whipp 15:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That is a ridiculous statement. Further research can be done, more content can be added. There's a reason that we have "stub" categories here on Wikipedia. The AMG link is enough of a reference for the the content that currently exists, and other references can be added along with additional content. Precious Roy 15:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
      • It's truly not ridiculous. No one has written about this album ergo, there will never be anything to write about this album apart from OR. There is one link and that seems to be all. You say other references can be added, but you've missed my point. My point was exactly that no sources exist. Seraphim ^Whipp 16:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
        • I have not missed your point. Your statement that "no one has written about this album" is truly ridiculous: A simple check of All Music Guide shows that someone has written about this album. Going to just one site I was able to find a source. Claiming that "no sources exist" is a fallacy, to say the least (it's more like dissemblance on your part). With a little effort I don't doubt that more sources can be found. Precious Roy 19:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
          • My implication was not clear. It was that noone other than the AMG reviewer has written about it and that no sources other than that exist. Seraphim ^Whipp 21:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
            • This is what I was using as a basis, [1]. Of course, it seems that this conversation has now been made redundant by the fact that you have provided sources, which is excellent. I shall change my vote. Seraphim ^Whipp 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Have added additional references from the Boston Herald and MTV.com. Also, found that the album won a Boston Music Award for indie debut album. Precious Roy 21:36, 23 September 2007 (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.