This Is Next Year: A Brooklyn-Based Compilation: The article was created and populated by Mcmeatm which appears to be a public relations effort accouont of Arena Rock Recording Co. based on edit history.  Existance is not a valid reason on its own to have a product (such as an album).  An album is not inherently notable Graywalls ( talk ) 20:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music .  Graywalls ( talk ) 20:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I corrected the link to the AllMusic review and found this interview piece from Time Out New York , but that's not enough to convince me.  Redirect to Arena Rock Recording Company ; there might be enough between the two sources to make a small section on that page if anyone wants to, but there's nothing here to merge.  QuietHere ( talk | contributions ) 21:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source assessment as requested by Liz in relist: interview with those involved in the article subject don't count towards notability.  Graywalls ( talk ) 02:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment The target you're suggesting is of highly questionable notability that may not meet WP:NCORP which is being considered for deletion also Graywalls ( talk ) 21:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , given the AllMusic review and some more stuff I think we can meet WP:GNG : 216 word review in NYT via proquest: [9] , Pitchfork has about 80 words of sigcov in this article [10] , published a few years after the album, which contextualizes the album a bit.  A key bit of verifiable info It was bloated with 42 tracks of NYC's finest-- including Interpol, the Walkmen, and French Kicks...  Their debuts would all come within a year of the compilation's release.  ~80 word review in Entertainment Weekly: [11] .  There's also a couple capsule-style reviews that only have a sentence or two of SIGCOV but could aid in the article.  A few words of coverage here [12] , a bit from [13] — siro χ o 04:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment just for all's review: NYT piece they mentioned above is at: https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/27/arts/critic-s-choice-pop-cd-s-sounds-that-affirm-new-york-s-strength.html Graywalls ( talk ) 19:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:45, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: It would be nice to see some assessment of the sources brought up in this discussion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The references noted above, along with AMG's review, are enough to pass muster.  This product is notable.  (An amusing way to put it; I admit that The Messiah and Sgt. Pepper are products, too, but I never once thought of them in so cynical a fashion.)  Chubbles ( talk ) 14:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I can compromise as a Redirect if that'll avoid a "no consensus" closure.  Graywalls ( talk ) 04:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note to closer, the redirect target is itself up for AfD, so a redirect here may and perhaps is likely to result in a delete in practice.  Chubbles ( talk ) 07:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Unfortunately, that AfD failed and closed as no-consensus due to minimal participation :( Graywalls ( talk ) 06:35, 18 August 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep