Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosherat

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. Irrespective of the reliability of the source proffered, one source is not multiple which is the test that i have to clsoe this duscussion against. The delete votres are therefore the policy based arguments Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kosherat

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

no independent notability shown for this album. no charting or awards. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am also nominating the following related pages on relases by the same band with the same notability issues:~~

Unbundling based on below comment. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But nominate individually. Most of these albums are released on major labels and have multiple reviews online. For example, this shows quite a few third party sources, plus reviews. I'm almost going for a speedy keep on this. The Undead Never Die (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But not coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a link to sputnikmusic which calls the album Kosherat "fantastic". They review some of their other albums as well. [1] Dream Focus 14:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sputnikmusic link is not a reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. See below. Dream Focus 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unfortunately the Sputnik review wasn't written by one of their professional reviewers, perhaps a separate page 'Grand Belial's Key discography' would be a better option than individual pages? J04n(talk page) 18:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Just this article, after debundling) Delete, unless I missed something this does not appear to satisfy the general notability guideline. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one review by a non-staff volunteer contributor for sputnikmusic is not enough to meet criteria of WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. Hekerui (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a fan-submitted review (even if staff-checked), on a website dedicated to such reviews, is not indicative of any particular notability. If this is (as Google News/Books seems to indicate) the best (and quite probably only) source that can be unearthed, then this topic has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Underlined a couple of phrases above to emphasise my point that "fans" (enthusiasts, call them what you will -- people who are writing for love not money) are not "independent of the subject". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I asked if the review was a reliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#sputnikmusic. Not anyone can submit reviews, only certain skilled writers, and the paid staff must approve it. The quality level of the reviews is thus kept high. These approved contributors [2] who go through the same editing process paid reviewers do, aren't just people that submit a few reviews, but a rather large number of them, sometimes in the hundreds. Dream Focus 09:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums were made aware of this post. J04n(talk page) 18:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I saw J04n's post at WT:ALBUM and thought I'd toss in my two cents. It looks like this discussion is focusing too much on whether the Sputnik review is credible or not, which I feel is a little off topic. Whether or not it's reliable, it's still only a single review. Both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS are seeking "significant coverage" through sources, and one lonesome review just does not satisfy that criteria. Instead of debating the reliability of a contributor's review, editors interested in keeping the article should be digging up additional sources instead. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grand Belial's Key. —Andrew_stalk 21:57, 24 July 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.