Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spit No Evil

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 redirect to Ras Kass. MBisanz ^talk 04:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spit No Evil

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS — Ṟ Ṉ™ 06:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not fail WP:NALBUMS, it had references and 3 reviews, much more than hundreds of albums articles.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those reviews do not come from reliable sources. One of them is a blog on Tumblr, the other is an unreliable music website.... — Ṟ Ṉ™ 16:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why Urbanology Magazine is an unreliable site? Any proof of that? It doesnt seem to be unreliable in this other article: Allow Me to Re-Introduce Myself, should it be deleted also?. So, the references of the article are from reliable sources, used in several other WP articles (DJ Booth, Baller Status, Hip HopDX...), claim on failing WP:NALBUMS not true.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see that the Tumblr review has been removed. 2013mixtapes.com is unreliable too, so it should be gone. Urbanology Magazine is reliable, I guess... — Ṟ Ṉ™ 18:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK done, still no reason for deletion. Would be much better to delete the non-professional-reliable content instead of trying to delete the whole article, isnt it?. Good faith and all that...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not assuming bad faith. I'd like to keep the article, but only if it meets the notability guidelines. If you, or any other users, provides sufficient links to achieve this purpose, I'd gladly withdraw the nomination. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 03:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficient links!?!?!??? Come on! The article has 9!!! I bet you that 80% of WP album articles had less links. Seeing that, I cannot believe that you want to keep the article, but to erase it. I would understand it in the previous case (The Yellow Snow EP), as it had no reliable coverage, but in this case wich is clearly sourced...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Twelve sources now. If this one is deleted, dozens if not hundreds of WP album articles should be deleted also.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is based on several reliable sources, used on other WP articles (Hiphopdx.com, Ballerstatus.com, Soulculture.co.uk...). It also has a professional review (Urbanology.com) and had information about the album different from the tracklist.Finally, the article is also necessary to have a comprenhensive coverage of Ras Kass discography.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 05:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Ras Kass. Not enough significant coverage to demonstrate notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, dozens if not hundreds of album articles should be deleted. For example, Allow Me to Re-Introduce Myself should be merged or redirected if we do not have double standards. Of course, if this one is deleted, for fairness Im gonna put AfD's in all that albums articles...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no doubt that hundreds of album articles should be deleted. See WP:WAX. If there are other articles you think don't measure up to our notability standards, go ahead and nominate them for deletion, but their existence has no bearing on this AfD. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of commercial or artistic impact. Indeed, if hundreds of these articles would be removed, WP would be better off. Could indeed be noted under artists.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2012 (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.