Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back to Mine: Adam Freeland

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 keep. Wizardman 22:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Mine: Adam Freeland

Completely fails all aspects of WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Each of these is a series of individual "mix" albums from a series called "Back to Mine." A google news search pulls up all of twelve possible hits for the entire series, mostly announcement type things. The series itself is barely notable, much less all of the albums in it. They have no extensive coverage in reliable sources and all of the articles are little more than a note of the artist, release date, and the tracklistings.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the above stated reasons:

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Artist doesn't qualify for any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC, same goes for song. Calor (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Artist has been nominated for a Grammy, thus is notable. "same goes for song": What song? - McCart42 (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Contrary to above assertions, the artists involved qualify easily under WP:MUSIC, and these albums individually have received non-trivial coverage in; The Independent on Sunday (Roots Manuva), The Guardian (Death in Vegas), NME (Adam Freeland) The Telegraph (Faithless), Boston Globe (Pet Shop Boys) etc. This is hardly a non-notable self released series, but one of the most successful mix-album series in dance music, and has received large amounts of coverage in sources as credible as the ones above. I don't assume bad faith on the part of the nominator, but there is no credible way that these albums fail WP:V. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One single bit of coverage each do not make them notable. Significant coverage in multiple sources is required, and the notability of the artists does not confer to the album. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I only put up those links to illustrate a sample of the coverage, not to exhaust it. Mostlyharmless (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without real evidence of notability, and all of the articles actually showing it, then they still are unnotable and should be deleted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe they should be submitted for cleanup and not deletion, since User:Mostlyharmless has just shown you the evidence you claimed does not exist. Please be willing to change your opinion in the face of clear evidence. - McCart42 (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One link per is not clear evidence of anything and notability still has not been established. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Grammy-award winning DJ compiles an album, said album is reviewed in NME, and that's non-notable? Maybe someone else can share why they think this is so? - McCart42 (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a SINGLE review from a music magazine does not establish notability at all, and it doesn't matter who compiled it. Again, the album must be notable on its own. And sticking in a forum posting quote really doesn't improve the article either. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again, there is much more than a single example of coverage in reliable sources for each of these articles; you didn't do the requisite looking for sources as is required by the deletion process, and now you seem too committed to deletion to admit any ground. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One could certainly take an axe to many of the AfD submitter's articles as well as being something insignificant, and yet most of us are capable of understanding that there are works that we don't appreciate and yet others do. If this place has room for 8000 words on a List of Meerkat Manor meerkats, I think we can spare some space for a compilation by a Grammy-award winning DJ. If there's not enough descriptive text right now, then such text can be added. And anyways, weren't you going to delete the entirety of the DJ-Kicks series too? - McCart42 (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, one could not take an axe to many of my articles, or even some. I actually create articles that meet our notability guidelines. The meerkat list is a featured list with extensive sourcing to back up its notability, and part of a featured topic. It is not one of a dozen little stub articles that have no other purpose than to let people throw up the track list for CDs, mirroring any retail site that sells it and completely violating WP:N, WP:MUSIC, and WP:NOTCATALOG.

Should also note that McCart42 is the creator of most, if not all, of the nominated articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If by "most, if not all" you mean "one". And I do question your motives for not submitting for deletion the entirety of the DJ-Kicks and Late Night Tales articles at the same time. Do you mean to have this debate on the smallest subsection and then delete the others one group at a time, so as to minimize the number of commenters opposed to the deletion? - McCart42 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question my motives all you like. I nominated the ones in front of me that were all from a single series. I have no obligation to hunt down and nominate every last other similar series just because you want to use the WP:OTHERSTUFF claim to justify this set. WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a valid argument. And I stand corrected, you only created one, the one that caused a copyright alert that brought me to the page in the first place. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you have no intention of writing an AfD for the articles these other users have contributed? Because otherwise you appear to be deleting small quantities at a time so as to arouse the least interest in those who would want to keep these articles. Considering that the only objection appears to be that there is not enough descriptive text, why not submit these articles for cleanup and not deletion? - McCart42 (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment McCart42 has appears to be engaged in canvassing for people to come to this AfD, implying on other article talk pages that if they don't save this one, "theirs" will also be deleted[1][2][3] and leaving messages for other editors of similar albums because they are likely to support his keep.[4][5][6]
Comment Since when is a Google News search criteria for determining notability? I find 3 hits for Wolf's Rain, does that mean it's non-notable and should be deleted? The lack of Google News search results is not an argument by any stretch of the imagination. - McCart42 (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf's Rain notability is well established by Wikipedia guidelines. Why not actually address the issue instead of continuing to attack other editors and articles? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf's rain has a bloody good point. In the past, I've failed to stand up for articles that easily pass WP:V and WP:RS (such as the ones above), because fighting a determined deletionist is hard work. And then 6 months later I've seen things I did care about nominated and deleted, mostly on the strength of WP:OTHERSTUFFWASDELETED. There is no way DJ Kicks and Late Night Tales are much more (or less) "notable" (the most subjective and useless criteria on Wikipedia), or have received greatly more press coverage. They're at risk from deletionists too. Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see...Wolf's Rain has 34 sources, all reliable. Its aired nearly worldwide, won multiple awards, critical acclaim, and has an award winning soundtrack (and note, that despite being award winning and easily more notable than half these CDs, it does NOT have a separate album article). And the one "keep" speaker to do any work on to show notability here has found, what, 1 each for some of the articles above? If you don't want stuff to be "at risk" either only actually create articles about notable stuff, or go find the sources to back up all your claims that these are somehow notable albums, because right now, no one has proven they are. Claiming they are notable just because you say so means nothing. Notability is not a subjective criteria. Its well defined and easily shown. So show it, or just accept that these albums, and those others, are not notable and either delete them, or be proactive and look at merging them into a single discography-style list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have thoroughly failed to comprehend the point, so I'll clarify a bit for you. Your assertion of lack of notability was based in part on the statement that "A google news search pulls up all of twelve possible hits for the entire series, mostly announcement type things." Fine, Wolf's Rain is notable, and yet I've just demonstrated that a Google News search has only 3 hits. So you're voluntarily choosing a very flawed argument to show lack of notability. Why is that? Not one of these artists' notability can possibly be in question. Most are DJs, and so a "compilation album" is in fact what they do for a living. Go look at Adam Freeland. He's been nominated for a Grammy, sold millions of albums, and yet all but one of his works listed are compilations. Since there are others who feel as you do that compilations are non-notable, very few of his works have articles. I would say that his notability allows leeway in including an article on all of his albums. Now I've begun adding refs to the entry I created, and others have demonstrated that these refs exist for every one of the articles you've AfD'd. It's come down to the fact that it is a bit easier for you to delete than to fix. Have it your way, I guess. Like I said, you won't be stopping at Back to Mine if you're at all self-consistent, I assure you. It's a bit puzzling, though, that someone who spends so much time writing about esoteric subjects feels so compelled to delete the work of others for allegedly being insignificant. - McCart42 (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have also failed to comprehend the point. I never said Freeland himself isn't notable. That does NOT make every one of his albums notable, compilation or not. Its still a non-notable album that you have not demonstrated any notability for. You added one ref (repeating it doesn't make it more significant) to again, one review from a music magazine that likely reviews most CD releases. That is NOT significant coverage. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"from a music magazine that likely reviews most CD releases" - So you're just guessing at this point, I see. How many CD releases do you think there are each week? And how many reviews do you think a print magazine can write? There's a editor's review by Alastair Lee in BBC Collective as well which you've decided to ignore in saying "You added one ref". Please stop making false statements in support of your point. - McCart42 (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see a forum posting as falling under WP:RS. So my statement still stands. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Lee is a founder and editor of BBC Collective, and he wrote the review. You're welcome to ask someone in a position of authority whether or not BBC Collective is a reliable source, but this falls a bit above the level of a forum posting. I'd rather you not respond in such a misleading way in the future, but my previous requests haven't been heeded so I suspect this one won't be either. - McCart42 (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very much part of an important series of Back to Mine albums, which were very popular in the UK... not sure how high each one charted, but I certainly remember the adverts in the Underground station whenever a new one was released. These compilations were always hotly anticipated. Of course it should stay. 193.200.176.30 (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —McCart42 (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSeries is notable, but there is no need for 20 articles consisting tracklists. Merge the 20 back into the series article.Kww (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Which is it: Delete or Merge? - McCart42 (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, then delete, because I see no reason to leave 20 redirects, either. There is some information in each of the album articles that should be preserved, so if there is a history issue with the GFDL, someone should merge the histories. In the end, no article under this name should exist.
Kww (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This series of albums (along with DJ-Kicks and Late Night Tales) are very popular in the UK, and generally receive reviews by the UK dance press (Mixmag, DJ Magazine, i-DJ etc) upon each release. Since the compilers of the albums are unquestionably notable, and considering that the content of these albums is music by other notable artists, it seems churlish to delete these articles. Examples of reliable sources are mentioned above, more are here, here and here, if you'd care to look. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 21:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep all of the series is important in the UK, its compatible to the "Now That's What I Call Music" for many stations and DJ. The albums were released by a label and they were released by legitimate musicians. I feel that deleting the articles is damaging to Wikipedia's music section.--Gen. Quon (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is another good point: Not a one of the dozens of articles in List of Now That's What I Call Music! albums admit more notability than the Back to Mine series. If any of these albums is deleted, those should be deleted for the same reasons. It is only proper if we are to be consistent with the rules of notability as interpreted by Collectonian. I'd love to hear an enumeration of "all aspects of WP:MUSIC and WP:N" which these articles so completely fail. Suspect we'll all be waiting for some time however. - McCart42 (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2008 (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.