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. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gapless album[edit]

Gapless album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable and unencyclopedic; I'd call it a neologism but it's not really even that. In any case, fails WP:NOTE and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsure on this one. It seems as if it might be a valid category, at least, or as a list (which would be at List of gapless albums) if annotation is necessary. However, the category (and perhaps a list) should only include those albums that are primarily gapless, not any album with no gap between two tracks. All that said, an article could be written at this title, discussing the history of gapless albums and discussing some notable examples in-depth, but this article is not that. Powers ^T 00:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as valid stub after Chaser's modifications. Powers ^T 15:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: trivial list, unencyclopaedic WP:V. JamesBurns (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've put some meat on the bones and removed that unmaintainable list.--chaser - t 05:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--OK, so the bones have meat, that is, it exists. It's still not notable, though Chaser, I appreciate your efforts. Drmies (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. I hadn't considered notability, but you're right. The first reference is the only one that covers this in any real depth. Unless more sources turn up, a brief mention at gapless playback and a redirect to there is probably the best option. The two are quite similar.--chaser - t 04:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Largely unverifiable, no hope of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this is an article-worthy topic (3000+ Google hits for the exact phrase), although this may not be the right title for it. -- The Anome (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Added some more relevant information. This concept exists, hopefully the adding of information I have added will help support the argument to keep.--kamojamo - t 14:11, 30 November 2008 (EST)

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.