Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daylight of Spring
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. As a "soft" delete, this decision may be reversed upon request at WP:REFUND. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Daylight of Spring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced, no assertion of notability, contents duplicated on the page for Sodagreen. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The nominator and I have already discussed the reasoning behind this nomination, which was copied verbatim from a previous PROD. Using prose like "Unsourced, no assertion of notability", indicates poor quality as the reason for deletion. According to WP:NOTCLEANUP, that is not a criterion for deletion. Meanwhile, according to WP:BEFORE #9, a lack of sources IS a criterion for deletion, if the nominator makes a good faith effort to determine that such sources do not exist. The nom's prose gives no indication that this was done. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response For the record, there are no acceptable sources for this album at this time that I could find. There, I said it. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:55, 25 January 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.