Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apple (A. G. Cook 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. (non-admin closure) — Amkgp 💬 05:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apple (A. G. Cook 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)

Since it has been ~3-4 months since this page was moved from draft: to main namespace without quality review, I think reverting it to draft space at this point would be a bit too much without consensus; hence I am starting this discussion. However, I think this page appears to be promotional and has a bunch of low-quality references, and it may not be ready for main namespace. I'd suggest incubating in draft space until the page has been moved by one of the AFC reviewers. Aasim (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aasim (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just curious, what do you find "promotional" about this article? The album has been reviewed by numerous notable publications, I'm not sure what "low-quality" references you were talking about. This article seems to be notable, and I think what you want could just be achieved by revising the article, rather than deleting it outright.Gagaluv1 (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reviewed and covered by multiple RS. Caro7200 (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Something is wrong with this nomination. The article was created before the album was released, and at that point it may have been a candidate for the AfC process. But the album has now been released and many people other than the original creator have worked on the article. Claiming that it should go back to draft/incubation now would disrespect the contributions made by everybody else; and (reading between the lines) the nominator is insinuating without evidence that some process was violated when it was moved from draft to mainspace. As for the album itself, it has been reviewed by several reliable publications and others have offered verifiable information on its recording and release history. And the "promotional" accusation is untenable, unless the nominator can come up with a way to describe the album's existence and quote its good reviews in some other fashion. DOOMSDAYER520 | TALK | CONTRIBS 23:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly passes WP:NALBUM, far more than many other album articles. Low-quality references? This has been reviewed by almost every major English-speaking music publication (in addition to those already in the article, there are reviews from The Times, Evening Standard, The Spectator, Sputnik Music, The Wire and the Wall Street Journal). I don't really understand what incubating in draft space would achieve, as the album has been out a while and almost all the information for it will already be available. This is very likely to feature in many "best albums of 2020" lists in a month's time as well. Richard3120 (talk) 15:09, 21 November 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.