Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gone Fishing (album)

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 no consensus. This discussion has been badly tainted by sockpuppets; no prejudice against renomination if need be. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gone Fishing (album)

Non-notable mixtape with no coverage of substance. Everything I could find amounts to "this band released a free mixtape, here's the tracklist, artwork and link". (OK, one Belgian entertainment blog/website wrote three paragraphs about it—still, insubstantial.) Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of significant coverage, and an official release from a notable group.--Michig (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Major and official mixtape by a popular hip hop group, many other mixtapes have their own pages with just as much information as The Cool Kids one.--gameworldduelist2 (talk) 5:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Confirmed Sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gameworldduelist2 Icestorm815 • Talk 05:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

- Doesn't really address the issue (notability per WP:NALBUMS). See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to being about a promotional item, the article resembles advertising. --Fremte (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia can and does have articles on promotional items and there's no problem with that. If you object to the tone or style of the article then edit it or place a template such as: {{advert}}.

Deletion discussions, according to WP:Deletion, are to focus on the notability of the article, and whether it could be cleaned up, not on how bad it currently is. Cazort (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Even though being a new user, this article does nothing against wikipedia policy and i don't understand what the person above me means by it being a promotional item, because a mixtape's purpose is to generate hype for an artist or help gain fans. Obviously he/she does not understand the purpose of a mixtape, and besides, if you think there is something wrong with this article for being a mixtape, why not go and try to ban mixtapes from being created on wikipedia? There is clearly no substance for TheJazzDalek's argument.--thecool702 (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Confirmed Sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gameworldduelist2 Icestorm815 • Talk 05:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

You have made the point as to why it should not be here - hype for an artist and gaining fans is advertising, c.f., Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles. --Fremte (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why aren't mixtape articles banned from wikipedia? That's what a mixtape is and me being an avid hip hop listener would know. What's the point of allowing mixtape articles when people like you are just going to whine and moan about the definition of a mixtape? Get tha hell outta here with dat shit and propose to someone on wikipedia to block mixtape pages from being made--thecool702 (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the current "sources" listed are blogs, which are inappropriate according to Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources. I am going to remove them as sources, look for other sources, and then return here to comment. It's unclear to me whether this topic is notable before I examine the current and potential sources in more detail. Cazort (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Keep Only one source was a blog, and I removed it. Although some of the hits in google news are blogs, the remaining sources appear to be from reliable sources, and they certainly cover the topic in detail (although only two of them are extensive articles) and are non-trivial coverage. This is the very essence of WP:N which is why I am arguing to keep. Cazort (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which you consider "extensive" and "cover the topic in detail"—there's only one that's more than a paragraph long, the rest consist of a track list and a couple of sentences. Also note that WP:NALBUMS says mixtapes need significant independent coverage in reliable sources. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call me lenient but I tend to think that a paragraph of direct (exclusive) coverage usually constitutes significant, because it is quite far from trivial coverage, i.e. from [[WP:N]: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". This source has 3 paragraphs plus track listings: [1], and this (non-english) source: [2] has more than that. Cazort (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cazort. Tim meh ! 20:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Liik3 Duhh!!! Hairybeast92 (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Confirmed Sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gameworldduelist2 Icestorm815 • Talk 05:28, 15 May 2009 (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.