Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stories About Nothing

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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stories About Nothing

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 21:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable recording by non-notable artist. PROD and A9 decline by Cavarrone saying, "I see multiple reviews about this album". The artist was determined to be non-notable by an AfD and all other recordings were deleted per A9. This article has 6 references. Three are from Myspace and not independent (regardless of reliability) which means they can't be used to establish notability. The other three ([1][2][3]) are not from blogs. I would possibly consider Oh Word a reliable source but the article doesn't even list a writer. A Google News search provides no significant coverage from reliable and independent sources (no hits at all). A Google News Archive search provides a two hits that actually pertain to this subject. One seems to be a reliable source but the coverage is of the artist and only mentions the recording in passing. The other isn't about this recording and isn't significant coverage (in my opinion).

Per these findings, I feel that this recording fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS, just like all of the other recordings by this non-notable artist. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, particularly WP:NALBUMS in that there is not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Tgeairn (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above. This writer in a detailed review hails the record as a "true classic", but was apparently drunk at the time of the review, and uses poor grammar that is criticized by other users on the site. This possibly detracts from its reliability as a source, leaving no further reliable reviews. Zujua (talk) 23:31, 16 July 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.