Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Consequence

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. Essentially, no convincing rationales for keeping the article have appeared in the last two weeks of the debate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Consequence[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Article doesn't comply to both General Notability and Notability:Music guidances.--SubRE (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this here alone cuts it I would say A Void on vevo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asouko (talk • contribs) 10:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Striking comment by sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asouko ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Youtube/Vevo videos aren't factored into the requirements for having a stand alone article, unless music journalists take note of its popularity or playcount or something. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like it meets GNG to me and can't be merged to the Phase article, it has too much info. Titanium Wolf (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources help it meet the GNG in particular? Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources are either interviews, blog posts, or not in-depth. Nothing here to establish why this album is notable. --Darth Mike^(talk) 17:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep where all these albums in wikipedia have dragged their importance? if you go on nextbigsound.com you will see the band's status as established that's good enough for me and if you google bands name, band album you will find so many things, you can't delete something that can be fixed and that's a good enough argument... read the guidelines before you start doing your thing! MusicPatrol (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised that MusicPatrol and Asuoko are technically indistinguishable (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asouko); I have struck Asuoko's comments as they are blocked as a sock, and have left MusicPatrol's as they being treated as the master. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Please read WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of links that aren't blogs featuring the album in talks, and the article has been edited in the past by experienced editors, plus a master editor, if there was something wrong he at least, would have brought it to light. Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. We can't be afd-ing whatever we see if we don't have good faith in making articles better, or at least asking someone's help and address our concerns on an article's talk page 2.97.229.76 (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in your assessment that notability is not temporary, but the assertion here is that its never been notable, and sentiments like "but it was never deleted before now" are not valid keep rationales. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment the article can be fixed, deletion should only be the last resort! Asouko (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comment by sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asouko ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Phase (band) as not notable per WP:NALBUM. There is no evidence of notability, and the album does not seem to have been reviewed in any reliable sources. Keep arguments above are not in accordance with policy. There is no way an article can be significantly improved if it does not have any reliable sources: everything on Wikipedia must be capable of being properly referenced per WP:V. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:rockpages If you check Alexa it has readability, and it's certainly not a blog. or here bare in mind the album is 10 years old and you can't get the links easily in results. these are reliable sources as well us here and here Asouko (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comment by sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asouko ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I don't think saying the above keep arguements are very fair, is it? But what do I know? MusicPatrol (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: passes WP:NMUSIC. DrStrauss talk 14:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific, which criteria(s), you think, it passes?--SubRE (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepJust to sum up... We know how hard it is to prove a negative, please reread all the comments above, the article should stay and I will improve it in time, there is material for it in the internet and magazines. You can't just erase an article just because someone woke up on the wrong side and decided to tagbomb for whatever reason, especially when experienced editors have tweaked the article in the past and never left a tag, notability once established is not going away... there are enough sources to prove notability Asouko (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comment by sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asouko ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While it is always good to see new faces here at AfD, it would be very helpful if the discussion post-relist could focus on whether or not this article meets the standard of WP:NALBUM. Many of the previous keep arguments are not policy-based and may well be discounted by the closing administrator.

Although you make valuable points, you can only !vote once. DrStrauss talk 20:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 16:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in deference to the re-lister I'll talk about WP:NALBUM first, however I'll start with the second criteria: "country's national music chart" - No. #3 is "certified gold" - No. #4 has been "nominated for a major music award" - Nope. #5 "recording was performed in a medium that is notable" - uh uh. Similar negative results for #6 and #7. Regarding #1, which would also go to whether it meets WP:GNG, there does not appear to be any significant, in-depth coverage about the album from independent, reliable, secondary sources to show it meets either the #1 of NALBUM, or for GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does meet the notability criteria, some admin should correct me on that, but you can't make a case disproving something nobody ever claimed, listing gold certification etc. It's pointless listing links again the ones mentioned above, and the ones on the references should do. I've been browsing album pages all this time MusicPatrol (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will correct you then. You are mistaken. People can build a valid case based off of things that a subject did not accomplish. The lack of sources from professional music writers and journalists is the most damning part of this article though. Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: echoing previous re-list.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 14:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in the article constitutes third party significant coverage from reliable sources, nor is anything that has been presented here. As such, it seems to fail the WP:GNG. I'm open to reconsidering should new sources arise, but so far, nothing is close to the sort of source we look for on Wikipedia, which is more like things listed at WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Quinton Feldberg (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2017 (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.