Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Da Drought 3 (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 delete The Drought Is Over Pt. 4, keep Da Drought 3. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Da Drought 3[edit]

Don't seem to be notable mixtapes; the only sources on the former don't seem very reliable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Given that notability for Da Drought 3 has been proven, I am removing it from this nomination. However, I am still keeping the nom open for further discussion on the other album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sorry, have to disagree on this one. The Village Voice has two articles – The Boston Globe reviewed and lastly Billboard does have a brief mention all shown here [1]. In addition, any album that generates as many hits on plain old Google as shown here [2] is impressive. Shoessss | Chat 02:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those news searches seem to warrant significant coverage -- the Village Voice is just one paragraph at the most, as is the Boston Globe; the Billboard ref is even shorter. Almost all of the GHits seem to be lyrics, tabs, or download sites. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me begin by apologizing to the editors that will read this. Yes, I am on my soapbox. Wikipedia is developing into be an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, its purpose is to help individuals find information and facts, that are verifiable and reliable, on subjects such as; locations – people – music – books –etc –etc. What constitutes notable and significant is extremely WP:POV as this discussion shows. What is notable for me is not necessarily considered notable by another. However, should we be prevented from providing that information because some think that it is not significant enough? Is not the basic concept and mandate of Wikipedia to provide information? I would rather error on the side of providing information, since we are not limited by how much paper we use, than to discard knowledge because some may think the sources provided are insignificant. However, when creditable – verifiable and reliable sources are provided, they should not be dismissed as insignificant especially when the sources are Village Voice – The Boston Globe and Billboard. Thanks for listening everyone, back to real life. Shoessss | Chat 03:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep Da Drought 3 because it was listed on Rolling Stone's "Top 50 Albums of 2007" (quite impressive for a mixtape) and it has a professional review from Pitchfork Media. I'm not sure about The Drought Is Over Pt. 4 at the moment. Spellcast (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Drought Is Over Pt. 4 due to very little notability and mainstream media coverage; keep Da Drought 3. It's received three writeups in The Village Voice, two in The Boston Globe (Newsbank ID 11A53AF7F63B3D60 and this) and two in Pitchfork, as well as various mentions in The Washington Post, Star Tribune, and Michigan Daily, Times Record News (Wichita TX). It made Rolling Stone's top 50 albums of the year and also won runner-up in its category at the Ozone Awards. east.718 at 20:49, January 27, 2008
Delete The Drought Is Over Pt. 4 as lacking notability established by reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Not an encyclopaedic topic. It contains more the titles of his songs than actual information in the article. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:45, 29 January 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.