Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyanide in the Beefcake

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyanide in the Beefcake[edit]

No evidence of notability, minimal information, fails WP:NALBUMS. Redirect to artists article undone by author. CultureDrone (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Album & Artist indeed notable. Was awarded South African Music Association (SAMA) Best Pop Music Performance in 1995. Gidzz —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

If the award was for this specific album, then I withdraw the nomination. if, as would seem based on [1] and [2], the award was given to the artist (whose notability I'm not disputing), and (as far as I read the notability criteria), the album still fails to meet notability, defined here and here. CultureDrone (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the performer has established notability (which abased on his article seems to be the case) then this becomes part of his historical record, which is valuable. One could argue that the album itself does not merit a standalone article and could be merged into the artist's page, but the information should be kept. §FreeRangeFrog 18:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to here In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. I would agree that at the moment the articles does not consist of more than just a track listing and could theoretically be merged with the main article, but bare in mind that it is a new article and will in all likelihood be expanded in content. The award for Pop Performance was for the Album - although it is difficult to substantiate/reference Music Awards are mostly given in reference for recent work (the notable exception being Lifetime Achievement Awards.) Gidzz —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, but the important phrase there in the WP:NALBUMS declaration there is " may have sufficient notability" - not " does have sufficient notability" - as I read it, that means that the notability of the artist simply tips the scales towards keeping the article if it's on the edge of notability, but I can't see that this particular album reaches that point. You're also making the assumption that there is anything else of note than the track listing which could be included to expand the article, and your statement that that award was given for the album is, by your own admission, unverifiable. I'm not saying that the album may not justify its own article at some point, but I can't see anything about it that means it passes the notability criteria right now - hence why I originally redirected the article, rather than simply suggesting deletion. Personally, I'd still prefer a redirect (or a merge if the track listing is that important) than a delete. CultureDrone (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I'd also disagree to an extent with FreeRangeFrog's comment - the implication is that any artist who meets basic notability criteria automatically imparts notability to all their albums, regardless of the content, notability or chart position (if any) of those albums. This would seem to therefore negate the requirement for WP:NALBUMS altogether, and circumvent the basic requirement for something to be notable to deserve inclusion. CultureDrone (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get your argument and I agree that it is valid for a significant numbers of articles that appear on Wikipedia. I also believe that a large number of these should be deleted for not being notable of being included but how will the article in question ever be expanded on by other members if it is redirected in the first hour of being written. Have a look at the first version of Thriller (Album) [3] and compare it to where it is now. It has to start somewhere. The Album in question is without question a significant album in South Africa. The fact that it is not known well outside of South Africa should not negate its significance. Yes, indeed there are not many references available but then it was released in 1994 when the internet was in infancy. By writing a first version of this article I hope that other wikipedians will add to it and improve its content and standard (and add references no doubt.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gidzz (talk • contribs) 20:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I get your argument about articles being expanded, but the fact remains that Wikipedia is not designed, as far as I read it, to hold details of things that may become notable in the future. If that was the case, then every 15 year old who'd formed a band with a few mates would claim that they were entitled to an article because they'd become famous in the future..... it's a tricky situation I know, and whole swathes of Wikipedia to do with music, television and films have this notability issue. However, the issue here seems to be not that you're claiming that it will become notable, but that it is notable, but you can't provide sources to prove it. The fact that the internet was still young at the time shouldn't make a difference - magazines and newspapers have been doing reviews and features long before the internet was even a twinkle in ARPAs eye :-) Whilst I understand the difficulty in obtaining suitable sources, making claims without backing them up violates WP:V - one of Wikipedias core content policies.

Incidentally, have you noticed how few comments there are on this - it's pretty much just you and me :-) Hellooo....is anyone there ?! CultureDrone (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing my point. I did not say it will become notable in the future. I said reference will be added as the article expands that will substantiate the notability. In any event, I am not going to add anything more to my arguments. They are out there and quite frankly I am not sure what happens from here. Does CultureDrone now make the decision about whether the article is deleted or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gidzz (talk • contribs) 14:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - the decision will be made by an administrator. However, since it's just been (pretty much) you and me going over this, they may decide that there hasn't been a consensus, and may relist the request to try and get other opinions. CultureDrone (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:20, 11 February 2009 (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.