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. Consensus is clear that there are enough sources for the article to establish notability. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A New Hope (Vanna album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

The Pop Matters "review" is not a very in-depth review, not the type which would satisfy significant coverage. And I'm not sure the Pop Matters qualifies as a reliable source since their reviews are submitted by non-staff members. The Exclaim review is a short paragraph, again, not the type of in-depth coverage needed. Absent those two, there's virtually nothing else found in searches. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I've never heard of this band but I like seeing this level of detail about albums. It's the type of encyclopedic information that makes me love Wikipedia. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Dr. Universe (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per above, and the multiple cited sources that make this pass WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – What even is this. There's enough reliable sources out there to create a short article and establish notability[1][2][3][4][5][6]. Where are you getting that reviews need to be of a certain length to establish notability? Where are you getting that Pop Matters reviews are submitted by non-staff members? Even if that's true, according to the author's own bio at the time of publication he was an established music journalist with 11 years of experience and wrote for CMJ, Billboard, Spin, Paste and a handful of other magazines. Sounds credible to me. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by Fezmar. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the article's and Feznar's sources, except for the Epitaph page which is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Geschichte (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment of the 6 sources above, #1 is a primary source; #s 2, 3, and 4 are short paragraph blurbs, hardly in-depth reviews; and #6 is a short 2 paragraph blurb, again, hardly in-depth. There are no additional secondary sources in the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep As there are multiple realible sources, and I'm not convinced by Onel's argument about the poor quality of the sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2021 (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.