Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Call (album) (2nd nomination)

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, lack of independent sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Call (album)[edit]

It's a bootleg. Fails WP:MUSIC. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} 09:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bootlegs don't automatically fail WP:N via WP:MUSIC just for being bootlegs if they have received significant independent coverage in reliable sources. With the demonstration of some such sources, consensus was apparently reached regarding the notability of this album in the previous AFD; one of these sources appears now to be inaccessible, but notability is not temporary. However, the article still needs to cite its reliable sources and references. Wiw8 (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Comment: I suppose you are referring to these two: [1][2]. Well, the first one isn't verifiable, while the second one is an article written by "STEPHEN HICKS", "a student at Virginia Commonwealth University." and published by The Free Lance–Star. For reliable sources, "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability", as WP:Verifiability says. First, "the piece of work itself": the article doesn't "adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, as it should. Secondly, "the creator of the work": it's a student at Virginia Commonwealth University, so I doubt he is a reliable source. Finally, "the publisher of the work" is a local, acclaimed newspaper, so it may be reliable. Overall though, I really wouldn't says this source is a reliable one.
In conclusion, none of those two sources are both reliable and verifiable, so I believe the article still fails WP:N (and therefore fails WP:MUSIC as well). Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} 21:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point was more regarding the fact that those two sources were sufficient for a "keep" consensus to be reached in the previous AFD; admittedly, the second source does look of fairly dubious reliability, so I can only assume that the first must have been quite spectacular in order for the AFD to go the way it did. The fact that that source is nolonger accessible doesn't mean that it suddenly fails WP:N - however, the fact that the article doesn't cite any sources is a problem, because the article as it stands still fails WP:V and WP:RS. I was also pointing out for the benefit of anyone choosing to take part in this AFD that being a bootleg does not necessarily mean automatic failure of WP:MUSIC. As an unreleased album which exists as a bootleg this may be more notable than your average bootleg, but yes, it needs WP:RS to prove it and to verify the facts stated. I'll have a look to see if I can find any. Wiw8 (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep on the grounds that this passed an AFD challenge with a keep decision only a few months ago. Artcles shouldn' tbe renominated in such a short period of time if the decision to keep is made. 23skidoo (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 months ago really isn't a short period, considering Wikipedia's lifespam of 7-8 years. Nonetheless, you should know that consensus can change and your argument really isn't a valid one for keep. WP:NOTAGAIN explicitly states that your kind of argument should be avoided in a deletion discussion. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} 23:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the fact that this article currently does not cite any references or sources. While the consensus of the previous AFD implies that reliable sources exist (and I agree that articles shouldn't be continually renominated for deletion on the same grounds until deletion is achieved), the article hasn't been updated to reference any reliable sources, meaning that we can't currently verify any of the information in the article which, in my opinion, is more of a problem than the fact that this is a bootleg. My search for sources has uncovered this, which discusses the (at the time) upcoming album, but unfortunately doesn't do anything in the way of verifying the information currently in the article. Wiw8 (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bootleg, speculation. Are there any sources to even substantiate the name? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless the article can be updated to include reference to reliable sources that verify the facts stated. Wiw8 (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2008 (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.