Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Elysian Fields (2nd nomination)

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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Elysian Fields[edit]

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

speedily renominating. fails WP:NALBUMS. media coverage merely confirms existence of this album. [1]. album never charted and not really reviewed in major press. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hugh Cornwell, cannot find coverage of the album in reliable source to justify having a seperate article. I can't figure out if this courts as a reliable source but it probably isn't. Interestingly, WP:NALBUMS doesn't seem too restrictive. I quote, "In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." (emphasis mine). I don't know if this is deliberate or just a poor choice of wording. doomgaze (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't punch holes in otherwise comprehensive discographies of notable recording artists. All his other albums have individual pages. As WP:OSE recommends, In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items. One of the functions of an encyclopedia, after all, is to be encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

could you please directly address how this meets WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. you've just presented a WP:UNENCYC argument. LibStar (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the point that the argument I advance has been recognized as valid by consensus in other AFDs, as well as being drawn from an essay that enjoys significant support from the community, I'll also note that the GNG is, of course, a guideline; that guidelines are to be applied with "common sense" and are subject to "occasional exceptions"; keeping discographies and similar sets of articles complete is both supported by common sense and one of the "common exceptions" supported by community practice. And it's very hard to understand why addressing the standard functions of an encyclopedia is an "unencyclopedic" argument. It might be wrong in this case (although that would surprise me greatly), but it's clearly a legitimate argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cornwell is clearly notable in his own right, and as a musician rather than a cricket fan. Therefore his musical output needs to be discussed, whether in a single discography or in the album-by-album format that is currently used. It isn't entirely clear that BEF fails WP:NALBUMS, and the argument from WP:OSE presented above is perfectly valid. Deleting this simply means, as has already been pointed out, that there will be a hole that needs to be filled. A single discography might well be more appropriate, but unless or until someone volunteers to create it, it would be far better to hold onto this page. BlueThird (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so you say this fails WP:NALABUMS... then it needs to meet WP:GNG. please show evidence of significant non trivial coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "It isn't entirely clear that BEF fails WP:NALBUMS" isn't at all the same as saying "this fails WP:NALABUMS". In any case, WP:OSE, accurately quoted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, allows for valid exceptions in instances such as this, so neither criteria has to be met. This article can stay because it's part of a related group of pages. It should stay because deleting it would create significant extra work in restoring the breadth of coverage on the wider subject, Hugh Cornwell. BlueThird (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"would create significant extra work in restoring the breadth of coverage on the wider subject" is not a reason for keeping, it must pass a notability guideline. also see WP:PLENTY. no sources have been found by any keep voters to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It might not be strictly appropriate to bundle this with other Cornwell albums that are being considered for deletion, but they should surely be considered together and within the wider context of Cornwell's notability. There's also an AfD for Wired (aka First Bus To Babylon). BlueThird (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage/album reviews found in The Age [2] and at musicOMH [3]. That appears to be enough to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 01:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I eat my words. Gongshows sources show that the album satisfies WP:GNG now. doomgaze (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2011 (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.