Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanitas (Anaal Nathrakh album)

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 Anaal Nathrakh. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vanitas (Anaal Nathrakh album)

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

Too soon, no sources to show notability, declined prod. GregJackP Boomer! 10:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Technically, your right, there isn't enough confrimed information yet for an article, but since it will be released in about five weeks, and will most likely receive enough coverage soon, it seems a bit of a waste of time discussing it at AfD - we could decide it isn't (yet) notable after 7 days of discussion then two weeks later there's some coverage and back it comes. --Michig (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Michig. I've added a source to the article, and I'm sure over the next month enough info will be available that the article will be worth keeping. If anything, instead of a delete, I'd support a redirect back to Anaal Nathrakh, until more than one reference exists for info on the album. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2012

UTC)

I can support a redirect. GregJackP Boomer! 23:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ if someone recognizable like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anand_Bhatt_(musician) doesn't qualify then this person DEFINITELY does not qualify as WP:NOTABLE Wikijustice2013 (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an album, not a person. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ignore Wikijustice2013. They are just copy/pasting the same Delete "vote" and comment in every AfD. Also, I believe Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248 are sockupuppets; see the Afd for Anand Bhatt, where 99.99.174.248 voted about 20 times and was warned by admin Mr. Stradivarious. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248 have been blocked by Postdlf for sockpuppetry and retaliatory AfD postings.[1][2]. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:45, 11 September 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.