Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X Worship 2007

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 all. Tim Song (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

X Worship 2007[edit]

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

All of these albums were originally discussed in the article X the album which was perfectly fine. Unfortunately, they all had non-free image covers which as per WP:NFCC (see also WP:NFLISTS) clearly isn't allowed. After I removed the violating images the author tried an end-run around the restrictions by creating an individual article on each album. Unfortunately, they are all unsourced and fail WP:NALBUMS; are pretty much copy and paste headers with a track listing; and as such should be deleted. There is no reason why the original article which contained an overview of each album should not be retained. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 09:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provided some reference is added to each. A track listing is enough to have a minimal album article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the problem. A link to the ITunes page for the album together with some reviews added by ITunes users, or a reprinted press-release style piece, is not in the slightest bit sufficient. There are reviews and mentions out there, but they tend to be blog-style websites or not significant. There's definitely enough here to write an article on the series of albums (which is how the article stood before it was split), but the albums themselves? (Also, WP:MUSIC suggests that articles that are little more than bare track-listing should be merged to the parent article, but that's a separate point). Black Kite (t) (c)
Keep per Graeme Bartlett as all of the articles now have at least one reference. Tag the articles for expansion and copyediting. --evrik ^(talk) 19:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Despite the fact the Black Kite was driving an edit war before, I’m Assuming good faith. BK is correct, that each of these articles could use some expansion and some clean-up. Each of the articles is now sourced, and they do pass Wikipedia:Notability. I am amused by the characterization that an end run was made. Black Kite complained that the X the album article had images, so the logical choice was to break up that article, and clean-up some of the text. Black Kite still wasn’t happy because of the lack of references, so now references have been added. You’ll note that the DVDs have been included with each of the album articles. Can we close this debate and move on? --evrik ^(talk) 19:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - See my comment above. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Evrik; sure we can close it and move on, if we delete/merge back. Spinning off separate articles in the hopes that someday they'll be cleaned up is the wrong direction to go. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I love it when people cite essays and pretend they're a guideline. --evrik ^(talk) 19:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG is still not met. Browsing through the sources, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" has not been established. Some are press release repeaters, some are user comments/blog style posts, and none are multiple sources, none seem significant, but that could be arguable. Therefore NALBUM has not been met, yet. I'd welcome users to keep working if they really think that each individual album is notable, under our guidelines. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete/merge back Neither Graeme Bartlett or evrik cite any policy or guideline for the basis of their arguments. Weak, at best. As Black Kite noted, these articles fail WP:NALBUMS and should be merged back to the original article, where a track listing can readily be hosted (see Bee Gees discography). Just because an album has a track listing (ALL albums have track listings!) doesn't make them notable enough for stand alone articles. As for references, each article has the exact same first paragraph, and the second paragraph varies only slight for the "worship" albums. In every case, the single reference on each album article is to support those first one or two paragraphs. The single citation on each is exceptionally weak. Example; thefish.com. Alexa says it's not even a top 100,000 site. It barely even breaks into the top 500,000. Lastly, separating these article in an attempt to keep the album covers seriously misses the point of WP:NFCC. These separate articles are pointless. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What I love about these debates is how they evolve. One of the issues was that the articles weren't sourced. Now its, well the sources aren't good enough. The fact is, given the chance each of these articles has the opportunity to be expanded upon. I am now going to go and rewrite the leads, so it cannot be said that they are all the same. --evrik ^(talk) 19:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point remains that the articles individually fail notability requirements. That hasn't evolved. It was the case before, and remains the case now. Further, there's nothing about these albums that can't be merged into the main article. That too was the case before, and remains the case now. No amount of verifiable improvements will change the reality that these are not notable. Improving the leads so they are not all the same isn't going to change anything. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree about notability, which is why I went and found sources. I also love the comment, "no amount of verifiable improvements will change the reality that these are not notable." So, nothing will chnage your mind? Good to know. --evrik ^(talk) 19:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Permit me to make myself clearer. These albums are not notable. There are no significant verifiable sources to assert notability. Unless their notability in fact changes, you're not going to be able to verifiably improve these articles. I invite you to prove me wrong. Find a Time article, or USA Today, or Entertainment Weekly, or SOMEthing from a significant secondary source. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Graeme Bartlett. They are more notable than a number of other record album articles on wikipedia. Tage them as stubs and for expansion. Newport Backbay (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE, and doesn't explain why or how they could pass WP:MUSIC. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:ITSNOTABLE is not policy. It is an essay. Many things written here are opinions. --evrik ^(talk) 14:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And Graeme's comments aren't based in policy/guideline either. Whereas the people advocating delete have rooted their opinions in policy/guideline. Opinions not based in policy/guideline here don't carry much weight. I certainly hope the closing administrator does better than count votes and conclude no consensus. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - ITSNOTABLE is a useful shortcut though to something explaining why such !votes will probably be given less weight by closing admins. When closing AfDs myself, I generally give no weight to "It's Notable" or "It's Not Notable" comments that don't refer to policy, and you will find that most others do to. This is why AfD is not a vote. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Newport Backbay; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't much of a reason to keep. It just means other stuff exists that should be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This goes to my last comment. Everyone here has an opinion, but none of what has been said is strongly rooted in guidelines or policy. I don't see there being a consensus for action either way. As such, we do less harm by kepping the articles. --evrik ^(talk) 18:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That isn't the case at all. The Delete comments clearly point out why the articles currently fail our notability and sourcing policies, vis they are currently not sourced to any significant third-party coverage. The Keep comments do not give any reasoning as to why this is not the case. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It seems to me that the delete comments are using a lot of words, but not saying alot. The keep argument is simple: The albums are notable, the articles are sourced. The articles could use improvement and deserve the chance for future growth. --evrik ^(talk) 14:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You've proved my point. Merely saying "these albums are notable" and not giving any evidence to support the claim means such !votes are not useful. Saying "these articles are sourced" when the sources are not significant or reliable merely backs that up even more. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I find 3 reviews with significant overlap in google news, and I certainly don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2010 (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.