Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Stuff

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 no consensus to delete/redirect. After extended time for discussion, it is apparent that a consensus to either delete or redirect the current title will not develop in this discussion. BD2412 T 01:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Stuff

[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)

I honestly don't see any indication of notability to permit for a standalone article here. The page has previously been deleted, but recreated recently. Yet no indication of notabilty that satifies WP:Album (An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article.) For this reason, i'm sending this here for proper consensus. But again, per WP:Album (Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article..) Cameremote (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Cameremote (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware this was already a page previously, however, I’m not understanding the logic in this not meeting notability guidelines. It’s a posthumous release from one of the most notable country music artists in the history of the genre, and the album itself had more than extensive media coverage upon its release. It was featured in magazines such as the Rolling Stone & other sites as well, and as best I see everything seems pretty well in order as it’s sourced correctly and the info in the article is all there and correct. 162.246.155.6 (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this reply above made by 162.246.155.6 was made by me, just wanted to clarify. I had believed I was logged in and I was not, sorry. Zacnascarguy 88 fan (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This review in Rolling Stone [1] and the MXDWN source should be enough for notability, unless MX isn't a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's not much to work with, but the Rolling Srone review helps support a stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree based on the Rolling Stone review. — Maile (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Waylon Jennings albums discography. Notability guidelines state that multiple reliable sources discussing a subject are needed to establish notability. One review is not sufficient and I'm unsure if MXDWN is a reliable source or not. WP:NMUSIC and WP:NALBUM state "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography". I don't think you can make a well-detailed article with one, or even two, sources. λ NegativeMP1 17:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Waylon Jennings albums discography Generally you cannot have an article based on just one or two RSes per WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, merging the notable content onto another article is the best way to go since the article is not notable enough for inclusion per WP:GNG. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even if we assume notability is there, we still need to decide whether readers would benefit more from having a standalone article about the album or see the content in the broader context of the discography.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable, as @Oaktree b explained. The content would not be served fit by redirection to the albums discography page, as there is no content on that page bar rote release information. If the content were to be merged into the discography page, it would be an undue focus on that album specifically as all other albums have their own article. Katzrockso (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rolling Stone’s article demonstrates there is enough WP:SIGCOV for a stub. Perhaps more sources can be welled up from there. MayhemStoppingBy (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now would be a good time to find those sources? Geschichte (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Rolling Stone article should help the stub even if it doesn't have that many sources. UnregisteredBiohazard ^{talk to me} 17:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The Rolling Stone piece is not, I repeat not, a review. It is a news article about the release, where the commentary is partially not independent since it quotes the album publisher, who is also Jennings' son. One article cannot "demonstrate" that there are other sources. Redirect due to WP:PAGEDECIDE. Geschichte (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did find this [2], not sure of its reliability. UnregisteredBiohazard ^{talk to me} 00:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also found this [3]. UnregisteredBiohazard ^{talk to me} 00:18, 11 October 2025 (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.