Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11/12/13: Live in Melbourne

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. Consensus is that the reviews satisfy WP:NALBUM. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11/12/13: Live in Melbourne[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)

This live album fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM, as a Google search failed to turn up signficant coverage in reliable sources. I couldn't find evidence that it won any awards or reached any national music charts. As neither musician has their own article, it cannot be merged or redirected. Citrivescence (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both musicians have their own articles. I'll put links on the page in question to both articles.

You're being all nice and everything while at the same time you're purpose is to undo a few hours of my hard work and you haven't given a good reason as to why. Why does it have to win an award to be worthy? I look around Wikipedia and see that this article is as well done as a lot, if not a vast lot, of other album articles. One of your fellow reviewers once told me that if I didn't like that fact, I should nominate some of those other articles for deletion. That's just silly. Why? Just because I might not want to read an article doesn't mean there aren't countless others that would appreciate it. To me, that sort of defeats the purpose of having an online encyclopedia. The problem with "notability" in regards to small independent record labels and albums is that you will never have the kind of press coverage for these small guys as for the big music machines. Somebody there at Wikipedia should recognize this as a problem for notability's sake and grade on a curve for these independent albums else the big machine and their money always wins at the end of the day. I think you walk a thin line between "notability" and "popularity" by not acknowledging this fact. I went looking for this album and found inaccurate data about it at a couple of different places which I'll not mention here, so I decided there might be other people interested in the facts, as I was. I have a copy of the album so I'm reasonably sure the information I posted is accurate. Deleting a perfectly good article and denying others that knowledge is akin to burning books in my opinion. So it didn't reach "Gold" status. The majority of albums don't, so big wup!

I'm going to post a couple more sources that I found online that should help this article, although I don't think that should have been necessary.HowlinMadMan (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(posting this in the user's notes as well) Hey, HowlinMadMan. I won't go into the why here as it's been extensively covered elsewhere on Wikipedia, but I recommend you check out our general notability guidelines and Music album notability guidelines. This latter link will be the most relevant. Do keep in mind, as well, that being here in Articles for Deletion (AfD for short) does not mean that it will be deleted, it means that Citrivescence is seeking consensus on whether it should be deleted - and likely feels that a) a speedy delete is inappropriate (which, in this case, it is), and proposed deletion is not the best bet (again, it is not the best bet). Even so, keep up the work and follow the guidelines - remember, in a worst case we can always create a draft for you. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I don't want to. The relevant guidelines are pretty cut and dry here, and this regrettably does not meet any one of those guidelines at this point in time. Moreover, the connection to the notable musicians does not connote the notability. If the author - or anybody, really - can get some more material that conveys notability, I will change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines state the following:

"Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries

Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography."

I have added a "Critical reception" section with three different articles where the album was reviewed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HowlinMadMan (talk • contribs)

Keep , or merge into artist's articles as the OP was incorrect about their not having their own articles. I've read the guidelines and feel there is sufficient reason to keep the article based on the above quote from said guidelines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HowlinMadMan (talk • contribs)

Delete. The fact of the matter is that it does not meet the guidelines for album notability, period. – DarkGlow (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources reviews in at least two reliable sources AllMusic and Country Standard Times. Also although this is a live album it does contain mostly original work which is one of the considerations regarding album articles, passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have never known AllMusic to be considered a reliable source. It is not listed on WP:RSP, the list that I generally defer to. Citrivescence (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of AllMusic in the list at WP:RSP is not evidence that it is an unreliable source. Read the "What if my source isn't here?" sub-section. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above response is correct, but @Citrivescence: AllMusic is listed under its parent publisher, RhythmOne. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Skeletor3000: I didn't realize! Thank you for letting me know. Citrivescence (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The nominator was just plain incorrect about the musicians not having articles. Meanwhile, there is not much to work with but the album does have some fairly descriptive reviews in reliable publications. This should be enough for a basic stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. WP:NALBUM suggests that album articles unlikely to grow beyond a stub should be merged with the artist's page, but I'm not sure how that would be accomplished with two primary artists. The two reviews amount to notability, even if just barely. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The creator of the page made improvements since the nomination. I think prolonging the conversation through two relistings is overkill for this unimpressive but inoffensive stub article. Toughpigs (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the above. I could not find non-trivial coverage beyond what's been added to the article, but these sources are just enough to satisfy WP:NALBUM so I'm fine with a keep rather than a redirect. gongshow talk 03:36, 8 January 2020 (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.