Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songs for Hip Lovers

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Songs for Hip Lovers[edit]

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

I like Woody and I know it is considerably more difficult to find sources for older albums but there is simply too much to ignore with this one. I found one source, an Allmusic review; the discogs in the article is user-generated and unreliable. One source actually describing the album does not satisfy GNG and there is no indication it passes WP:NALBUM. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A major artist on a major record label... not enough without the sources, I know, but there are ways... It's in one of the Penguin Guide to Jazz books. I'll add info from that. Ping me if someone suggests that coverage in the two main sources of pre-2009 jazz reviews – AllMusic and Penguin – are insufficient (they are sufficient for hundreds of articles, I'd guess) and I'll try to find something else. EddieHugh (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EddieHugh this book? The album is not even mentioned. I have another version of the book but it merely lists the album, yet never actually describes it. A redirect is a viable option if you believe an Allmusic review merits a mention for the album in Herman's article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the widely condemned '10th edition', which was just a selection of a few albums that one of the authors recommended. The various real editions (1–9) aimed to review what recordings were available at the time of publication (1992–2008). I've added information from the 9th edition (no online view available) to the article, as I have a physical copy of the 9th and it describes the album. I hope that's enough. EddieHugh (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am generally reluctant about deletion of articles about albums about which a bylined Allmusic review exists, though I appreciate that has not been sufficient argument in some past AfDs. In this case though, there were also multiple issues onto LP and then CD, and also the coverage in another reference book discussed above. All in all, I think enough for WP:NALBUM criterion 1. AllyD (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just added another reference, I believe the 4 texts references establish [[WP:GNG|--J04n(talk page) 16:31, 28 December 2017 (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.