Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navigator (1986 Omega Tribe 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 keep‎. Daniel (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navigator (1986 Omega Tribe album)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The page was previously deleted in 2020 for having no importance and later PRODed by user Amkgp in 2020 for the same reason before user Atlantic306 removed it for being “independently notable as the album charted on a national chart”.

I went back to look at this article as I was rewriting and splitting the main pages to determine if they should stay, and after looking I couldn’t find much (or any) reliable sources for the albums and most singles. The redirect for this page was reverted by Atlantic306 again for the same reasoning as before. I reasoned that even though it did chart high, there still wasn’t much reliable sourcing to make it pass WP:GNG and just because it charted high did not make it notable when it’s the only thing that I could find.

The only things I could really find was an announcement for this and another album being remastered (which only has a bit of text before giving the track list), the Oricon/Billboard chartings in the article, and articles that only mention it as part of writing of the whole career of the band (like the OtaQuest reference in the article). reppop^talk 00:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I would like to put my vote to redirect to Carlos Toshiki & Omega Tribe, as I had did prior to being reverted. reppop^talk 00:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. Skynxnex (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NALBUM#2 by charting at #2 on the Oricon Albums Chart. —siro χ o 04:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Person who contested prod is correct. Charting establishes notability. Notability can be established by either GNG or specific criteria; meeting both is not required. Bensci54 (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful it additional sources could be brought into this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band article. Chart positions definitely contribute to a band's notability, and I get pissed whenever an AFD commenter pulls the "Chart positions do not contribute to notability" comment when a song or album has like 10 of them. However, there is only one chart position. We still have to write a full article at the end of the day, and a chart position alone just does not give you enough. In all fairness, contemporaneous coverage about Japanese music in the 1980s is REALLY tough to find if your only source to everything was on the Internet and (probably) if you lived in the Western world. However, if what is on the article is all we have, the band article can easily summarize it. Additionaly, you could just list the Oricon peak in the discography section. The amount of content you could write is just too little to make an article on its own. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or redirect to band article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criteria 2 of WP:NALBUM. We have WP:SNGs for a reason.4meter4 (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, with respect, nominating for deletion a second place charting, 20th most sold album of the year just to make a point about SNGs vs. GNG debate is a gigantic wastle of time. If we were talking about a 2010s American album that ranked 40th in the gospel airplay chart maybe the nominator would have had a point, but for a Japanese band of the 1980s it is perfectly perfectly understandable why sourcing is difficult to find, but almost certainly exists. Cavarrone 07:59, 24 October 2023 (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.