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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 11:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We Wish You a Metal Xmas and a Headbanging New Year

[edit]
We Wish You a Metal Xmas and a Headbanging New Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded without comment by a new editor who added a "source" which turns out to be a 404. I can't find any reliable sources on this album at all — just "X recorded the song Y on We Wish You a Metal Xmas". No reviews. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After a very brief search, I found these reviews. It would also seem that the "source" I gave returns a 404 for users situated in USA, so you could try loading it through a proxy. I'm not entirely sure why this is nominated for deletion at all, given that it is available for sale in many reputable places and the original source is clear enough evidence that the album does exist. Though as you say, I am a "new editor" and so therefore not well-versed in what is deemed acceptable proof of existence. TurboMuffin™ (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, an article must have reliable, third party sources. This would mean for an album, things like reviews, a newspaper/magazine/reputable website article on the making of the album, etc. Those two reviews are the kind of coverage that are fine for an album article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 21 December 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, Courcelles 04:11, 26 December 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, Courcelles 00:26, 2 January 2013 (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.
More