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. The "keep" opinions do not really address the notability / sourcing issues. Sandstein 08:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Regional at Best (album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

I am so tired of this perennial recurrence. Regional at Best is protected and this is the same content that was there when it was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional at Best. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I understand that the article isn't in great shape right now, but the article for their first album isn't much better. If their first album is notable enough to have a article, then this one should be too. A lot of people are working on the article right now, so just let editors improve the article before you try to delete it. Bowling is life ( talk) 19:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • It's not that it's not in great shape, it just does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (which is what WP:GNG requires). It didn't when the last two deletion discussions occurred, and it still doesn't. The one review it had was a user review. The rest are brief mentions in discussions about the band. It also does no meet WP:NALBUM, so the album does not deserve an article. There are plenty of albums by notable artists that do not have articles. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 05:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 05:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 05:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Apologies, I tried to help this editor and move the page to correct disambiguation, without realizing that Regional at Best is currently SALTED following a 2017 AFD. I suggest Speedy Delete, warn the editor for repeated creations (See also Regional at Best(album) and their page creation log). -- ferret ( talk) 19:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with Ferret. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 19:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Lack significant coverage and hard to find any professional review - reviews found are either user-generated [1] or of uncertain quality [2]. Fails WP:NALBUM. Hzh ( talk) 21:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. -- PATH SLOPU ^{( Talk)} 11:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete: The album is by a notable band but the album is definitely not notable enough to merit its own article, and from the looks of things, it appears that it's going to just be a stub if it stays here, no one is bothering to improve it. EthanRossie2000 ^discuss 17:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep: I think this article should stay on Wikipedia. Twenty One Pilots are a big enough band now and this album is very well known by their fanbase. Since the band is big enough and all their other albums have articles on their own, I don't see any reason why this article should be deleted. More information can definitely be added to the article if it is to stay. BigChungusOnVinyl ^discuss 18:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • There are plenty of "big" (I'll say "notable") bands who have albums that are not listed on Wikipedia because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Each work needs to have sources to show that the work is notable. That's what we've been saying and that is the only reason for any article to be deleted. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, but there are other bands who are LESS known than Twenty One Pilots that have albums that are less known than Regional at Best that have their own page, such as Matt and Kim's self-titled debut, which, might I add, isn't on streaming services either. BigChungusOnVinyl ^discuss 18:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC) reply
      • Other stuff exists that shouldn't and it's no reason to keep this article. If you'd like to contact me outside of this discussion, I'd be happy to review the list of articles you don't think should exist. Stick to showing how this work meets either WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I personally thought this article had been deleted so I started working on a draft to recreate it. I have plenty of information with citation that I will add to the page as soon as I have finished writing. I do agree that at the current time of writing that it needs more infomation and I am willing to add to it. ( Godhatessonny ( talk) 17:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)) reply
  • Information isn't the issue, it's where it meets NALBUM or whether it meets GNG, which it doesn't. Both of these are linked multiple times above. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • I am very sorry for not reading carefully, these things happen. I personally wish the article wasn't up for deletion but I will try find stuff that makes it meet NALUM and/or GNG. If I can't find anything than so be it. Sorry for wasting you time. Godhatessonny ( talk) 18:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete I'm leaving this here in case my prior comment wasn't clear as a delete !vote. WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG don't appear to be met, and the article should not have been created besides, as it's true article name at Regional at Best is salted following the last AFD. I'm not sure why this keeps getting relisted. The keeps don't have any policy behind them, starting off with an inherit argument followed by a "the band is big" argument. -- ferret ( talk) 22:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete: As much as I love TOP and RAB, this is a non-notable album by a notable band (didn't sell many copies and most of the songs are on Vessel anyway). We already have enough details about RAB on the TOP Wiki page and this article is likely to remain a stub. MikeOwen ^discuss 21:39, 18 January 2019 (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.