Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Is a Dog

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Love Is a Dog}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Love_Is_a_Dog Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Love Is a Dog}})

Non notable album by Tinpan Orange. Doesn't cite any sources. Article has one external link which is dead. The article's content hasn't even been changed since 2016. Fails WP:NALBUM, WP:GNG. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to Tinpan Orange. It does get [https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&biw=1366&bih=625&ei=aMJ_XK2RFYuvyAPOmZDoAw&q=%22Love+Is+a+Dog%22+-wiki+-%22From+Hell%22+-Nebraska&oq=%22Love+Is+a+Dog%22+-wiki+-%22From+Hell%22+-Nebraska&gs_l=psy-ab.12...8832.19467..22062...1.0..0.326.2296.0j7j3j1......0....1..gws-wiz.dspvC69at38 a bit of coverage], but I cannot see anything quickly that stands out. Aoziwe (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: there's an interview in the Sydney Morning Herald about the album's release [https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/tinpan-orange-the-spooky-art-of-seduction-20160420-goasj4.html]... admittedly primary material, but it does give some background information. There's a review of the record in the Melbourne newspaper The Age [https://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/music/shortlist-album-reviews-wild-feathers-tinpan-orange-peter-dasent-richard-clapton-magnus-20160427-goggs0.html] and apparently another one in the Australian edition of Rolling Stone, although as the magazine closed last year, there's no online archive to be able to check. Richard3120 (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. The links provided by Richard3120 are enough for WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

::{{ping|Doctorhawkes}} Why would you say "Keep"? That page is one sentence long. It miserably fails WP:Standalone, WP:NAlbums, and WP:GNG. That page is not worth keeping. Horizonlove (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

:::The test of GNG is not whether the article is good (it is not), but whether sufficient sources exist to confirm it's notability (they do, IMHO). if the decision is "keep", I'll make the effort to expand it after.Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. There is nothing to redirect to Tinpan Orange, it is just one sentence long. There is also no reason to "keep" it. It would be misleading to the keep the page, especially in its current state, by making readers think there is more information when they click on Love is a Dog link to read more about the album and find out the page is only a sentence long. Horizonlove (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

:::Redirects are cheap. It's easy to see someone search for the album on here via the search bar and redirect back to the artist. – The Grid (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to Tinpan Orange. Still a valid serach term even if there isn't enough to sustain a separate article. PC78 (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per Doctorhawkes. Additional sources: [http://aaabackstage.com/album-review-tinpan-orange-love-is-a-dog/ 1], [https://hhhhappy.com/be-intoxicated-by-the-whisky-soaked-vocals-on-tinpan-oranges-love-is-a-dog/ 2], and [https://savagethrills.com/music/album-review-love-dog-tinpan-orange/ 3]. {{ping|Richard3120}} RS{{'}} review is [https://web.archive.org/web/20171201182733/http://rollingstoneaus.com/music/post/first-listen-tinpan-orange-love-is-a-dog/3517 here]. Meets WP:NALBUM.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect per PC78. Keeping simply isn't reasonable in the case of a 1-line article. Mosaicberry (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Sufficient coverage identified. Comments about the existing state of the article are missing the obvious, It can be improved. For the most part afds should judge the notability of the subject, not the existing article (exceptions do apply, promotion, copyvio BLP concerns, and others that do not apply here). duffbeerforme (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete this unsourced, one sentence blurb. Trillfendi (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tinpan Orange. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.