Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rig (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 Speedy delete per A9, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rig (album)

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

CSD-A9 tagged for alleged non notability, but the article's been here a while and a few other articles do link to this one. Still, its just questionable enough that I feel an afd is warranted. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A9 anyway, I can't find anything on the band. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 13:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of sources that establish notability in accordance with WP policy. The primary source has this to say about the album: "I realized I’d just tripped over another one of those Great Lost LPs that might have made a significant contribution to its era but instead languished in the vaults thanks to music biz shenanigans." Sounds like a good case for establishing NON-notablility. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2011 (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.