Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tango: Zero Hour

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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tango: Zero Hour[edit]

non-notable album Chzz ► 02:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. After 20 years "in the public eye", you'd think that there would be at least some claim of notability, but there's not. Un school 02:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources that have been added make this now clearly notable. Un school 08:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, coverage in the The New York Times, The Boston Globe, Rolling Stone, The Village Voice, Spin, Option, and others indicates this album is quite notable (source). I also have no idea what Unschool's reason is supposed to mean. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was a reflection of my surprise that there was not one attempt in this stub to assert notability. This is rather common when editors create articles about albums that were released, say, this morning before lunch, but it is rare for me to encounter an article about an album more than 20 years old which doesn't at least attempt to assert notability. Un school 02:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I am completely open to this article's preservation. If you would be so kind as to provide some links to those impressive sources that supposedly have covered this album (and not just that one apparently non-notable source you gave us), then I would be happy to reconsider my position. Un school 02:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you are unaware that I created this article less than one hour before it was nominated. Usually I might take my time building an article, but it seems Chzz was feeling urgent. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should also familiarize yourselves with the notability guideline for albums: "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." — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize for becoming part of the rapid bandwagon. I generally disapprove of AfDs being started on articles (other than patent nonsense) upon their creation. I came here to comment on another article that I saw had been nominated that I had been considering nominating myself for over two months. Anyway, once I got here, I just began to comment on other articles as well, and obviously didn't give the due consideration I should have. Anyway, you've got 7 days to make it right, and it's on my watchlist, as is any AfD I comment on, and I'll be back to see if you've brought this to an acceptable level. If so, I'd love to change my mind. Cheers. Un school 04:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure on what planet this is non-noteable. Also, is failure to claim notability in the article in itself even grounds for deletion? Hairhorn (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any official album of Piazzolla would be considered notable. But Hairhorn, in general, yes, articles have to claim some importance or significance for their topic. This could really be closed without further discussion because it is so clear-cut. Drawn Some (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info... I was just puzzled because I have also read.... I don't remember the exact wording... that articles should be deleted based on the subject's potential to be a good article, not so much on the article as written. Hairhorn (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reliable and verifiable sources added to article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2009 (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.