Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nice Enough to Eat

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. (non-admin closure) Cerejota (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Enough to Eat

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

Non-notable comp. 10 pages of Google returns and all I found was an allmusic review calling it "inocherent" (linked in article) and two passing references. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Red Baboon (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was one of a series of notably innovative and influential budget priced samplers issued in the UK in the late 1960s. As well as the Allmusic review, there are references here, here and here - "the best of the lot.... a tremendously varied hotch-potch of standards and styles that hung together perfectly on one dirt-cheap album." It's important to recognise that a "sampler album" like this was designed to showcase new material and expand the market for new music among a budget-conscious (i.e. young) audience - it is a quite different concept from a "compilation" of old material. In many cases these sampler albums are therefore inherently more notable, and influential in their own right, than almost all "comps". I would not object in principle to merging articles into, say, Island Records budget sampler albums (1960s), so long as the details including track listings (critically important in the case of sampler albums) were retained - were it not for for the obvious point that that is not a common name, and it would be.... well, silly. Much better to keep this album (and others similar) as free-standing articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This article has existed - harmlessly, and completely untagged - since 2004. That's not a reason necessarily to retain it, but it begs the question of why it needs to be deleted now. One of the problems is that we are dealing with an album that is 40+ years old, and whereas there would have been no problem in demonstrating its "notability" 40 years ago, it's clearly tricky to demonstrate it now, using predominantly online (hence, recent) sources. If it goes, WP becomes even more recentist and US-centric than it already is, but I'm sure that's a small price to pay. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The additional sources provided are not sufficient to meet the general notability guideline.
1. The Julian Cope piece is a review, and reviews are not an indicator of notability. Note that they aren't mentioned at all in Wikipedia:Notability (music).
2. The google book search tells us nothing, if we can't evaluate the source we can't just guess.
3. The allmusic piece is a simple item in a list/database, and doesn't go to notability.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more or less per Ghmyrtle. The Island samplers were particularly prominent and influential in the industry at the time of their issue, and were generally well-covered in the music press -- which is, of course, miserably available online. The very first entry in the GBooks search results reports that, for example, the Nice Enough to Eat sampler was particularly important in promoting the career of Nick Drake, certainly a quite notable musician. I have to see, in all honesty, that the comment above, that "reviews are not an indicator of notability," may be the single worst argument I have ever seen put forward in a deletion discussion by an otherwise reasonable editor. First of all, despite what user AB says, they are clearly covered by Wikipedia:Notability (music), which states rather plainly that "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is the defining criterion; it does not "mention" any types of coverage as being preferred. By the same illogic, every form of coverage which can be categorized should be excluded, since no categories of coverage are listed. Reviews are the primary means of establishing notability for contemporary creative works; NFILMS and NBOOKS quite explicitly recognize the point, for example, and the fact that some other guidelines might not include them in their list of examples reflects happenstance rather than policy or guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources The Mojo ref is certainly reliable, but the other two might be spammy/unreliable. As such, we're left with a single reference to establish some notability, which is tenuous. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the Nick Drake bio or the "Films and Filming" review? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response This might be spammy and it's not clear that this is reliable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those is, obvious, among the sources I asked about. We measure notability by the better available sources, not the worst, and if the strongest case you can make out is that some, but not all, of the sources might not be reliable, it's time to think about folding your hand. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source I had no idea what Nick Drake source you meant--it wasn't listed above and it wasn't in the article at the time that you mentioned it. If there are three sources and two are unreliable, that is actually a very good argument for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, there are now three unequivocally reliable sources - the Mojo book, the Drake bio, and the Guinness encyclopedia (which I have no idea why you think "might be spammy"), together with the Allmusic review and other reviews. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that a full textual reference to the album is contained in the Nick Drake WP:FA. I've added the ref to this article. If anything most clearly demonstrates the album's notability, it is the reference in that biography. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:13, 6 August 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.