Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hope Division

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hope Division

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Sputnikmusic review had to go because it wasn't from staff, but the other three reviews (which were already there, just not in ref tags) should be plenty. Both AbsolutePunk and Alternative Press are listed at WP:RSMUSIC. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per norm. Non-charting album, no certificates nor awards. ihateneo (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of notable albums which have none of those things. Does the GNG pass mean nothing to you? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
QuietHere, that's why i said "per norm", the reason why this is a discussion is because the outcome or fate of this article isn't solely decided by one person. I covered what wasn't mentioned, you want me to repeat what's already been said? ihateneo (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ihateneo this response makes no sense to me. What norm? Again, plenty of notable albums don't have charting or certs, but they get a pass based on the amount of coverage they received from reliable sources anyway. The "norm" would be to look at all tenets at play, including GNG/NALBUM#1, and determine whether they are met, not ignore them for no reason and delete anyway. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think they meant "per nom". - UtherSRG (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: And it is true that albums do not have to chart or have awards to be considered notable. But it helps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This from Australia [1] helps, I think we have enough to keep. Oaktree b (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NALBUM.1/GNG given sources presented by QuietHere and Oaktree. —siro χ o 05:41, 21 September 2023 (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.