Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayday (Awkward Thought 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mayday (Awkward Thought album)

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

The album fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:Notability. Also, the parent article, Awkward Thought, is very small. Citations verify the existence of this album but do not make the album more notable than it is (or is not). Very little or no professional reviews have been made; Allmusic hasn't reviewed the album yet. This source reviewed the album but is itself not notable. I inserted quotes from Exclaim website into the parent (band) article, so this article becomes less than necessary. George Ho (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the Exclaim review referenced in the article is a reliable source, although I couldn't find much else so its a weak keep unless more RS can be found Atlantic306 (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS. Fails #1 as there is a single, short review I could find (the one linked in article, which probably is valid, but on its own insufficent) and, more importantly, fails "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography.", as there is nothing there apart from basic details and track listing. I would say merge, but the artist article already has most of the info. crh23 (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing actually convincing of its independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 14 April 2016 (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.