Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jet-CD

: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 Speedy keep, no longer unreferenced and no deletion recommendations. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

=[[Jet-CD]]=

:{{la|Jet-CD}} ([{{fullurl:Jet-CD|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jet-CD}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Unreferenced for over two years, fails verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

weak keep likely notable. Brittanica (yes, the encyclopedia) says "In their first five years, Puffy sold more than 14 million CDs in Japan alone. Their albums Jet CD (1998) and Fever Fever (1999) were regarded as J-pop classics." Sources most likely not in English. Hobit (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Brittanica quote cited above is enough to verify that the group did put out an album of this name, and that's just about all that's that needs direct verification -- the rest of this extremely stubby article being details that can be cited to the album itself. Based entirely on the nominating rationale, that makes this a keep. (I note the main Puffy AmiYumi article has enough references that finding a verification should have been trivially easy.) If someone wanted to make an argument based entired on notability, they might get somewhere, but given that Ye Olde Brittanica deigns to notice the album, I think we can presumptively assume notability, so also keep on that argument. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Since so many folks want Wikipedia to be a clone of Brittanica, Britannica is pretty much the epitome of a reliable source. Seriously, though, releases by major musical groups are notable. And Brittanica can even be used as a reliable source for citing the opinion of the album in question being considered a classic, too. 23skidoo (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep. [http://www.oricon.co.jp/search/result.php?kbn=ja&types=rnk&sw=+&search_type=album&year=1998&month=4&week=3&web.x=39&web.y=6&web=Oricon+Search #1 ranked album], which is also already mentioned in the Japanese-lang wiki if anyone is inclined to look. Neier (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

:* I've added that reference to the article, which as it also happens to verify the album is by the artist, explicitly negates the nominating rationale. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

: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.