Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Make It Home

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. One two three... 22:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make It Home[edit]

Make It Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable album, no sources, no reviews, nothing online about this album save for directories. Redirect to artist was undone because author didn't understand why "every album but this one" had an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 19:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with reliable directories or reliable sources with track lyrics? Not all albums have these sources but this one does, why should this not be the criteria?--Lost Fugitive (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This album was listed on Dan Seals' biography at CMT.com. CMT's a reliable source if i'm not mistaking. There was an article on his studio album before this one, which was In a Quiet Room II, which also released no singles. Ryanbstevens (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (copied from Ryan's talk page) The CMT source is reliable, but it's only a track listing and nothing else. In a Quiet Room II at least has a review from Allmusic, which is (barely) enough for it to have its own article. We can't have articles on everything; even if the album is by a notable artist, it still has to have non-trivial coverage: reviews, articles about the album, etc. Collin Raye has two albums that got no reviews or chart singles whatsoever: Fearless and his most recent, Never Going Back. Neither has an article because there are no sources about the albums, no matter how notable Collin Raye is. It's okay for an artist to not have an article on every single album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this article does have profile on Allmusic link. It just hasn't been reviewed. They can't get around to reviewing every album ya know. Publichall (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis article should be left alone. It was released and it was his last album. If you look, you'll find something. Try Allcdcovers or Amazon.com. also, I Don't know about Collin Raye's last album. the 9513 did a pretty extensive interview with him about that. Publichall (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I dispute the claim that there is "nothing online...save for directories" as a google search with "Dan Seals" and "Make It Home" in quotes, yields 2,800 results. Among these, I have found many articles where the album is discussed, especially in the case of any Dan Seals obituary. Considering that the article is about the final album of a notable artist, and that reliable sources outside directories do exist, I see no valid rationale for deletion.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I had a good look out there, and there is nothing that comes close to significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources specifically mentioning or reviewing the album. The closest I got was a slight mention that there was nothing memorable on it. Unless I'm missing the criteria in WP:Music where a dead singers last album is automatically notable, this doesn't pass WP:MUSIC#Albums.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 09:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per others on lack of notability. User:Lost Fugitive's source is not a discussion of the album, just a mention of it, which is a strong indication of the lack of proper sources. Bigger digger (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, are we saying that because it wasn't professionally reviewed that it isn't worth an article? If someone would take the time to look at this: allmusic, or here AOL Music. Allmusic gives musician credits, songwriters, and track lengths. So what is making this album un-notable?. Publichall (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you have a read of the criteria yourself and see why it doesn't pass, taking special note of the first line. A track listing is not significant coverage.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 11:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Publichall said, what makes the album un-notable exactly? Clearly, this album is only being nominated for deletion because it seems to be unpopular, and unnotable. Ryanbstevens (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't you just read what Esradekan said? It needs more than just a track listing and writers. IMPORTANT: Closing admin, please pay attention to the "keep"s here; I really think that both keeps are simply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and nothing more. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then apparently you did not read my keep closely enough, since I did not cite other articles but instead disputed your statement that "nothing" else other than directories exist. The article actually can be expanded quite a bit by describing the album's content. Track lyrics from a notable site such as CMT.com, are available and can be used.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure which way round the burden of proof is for AfD, but in response to Ryan I had another look at WP:NALBUMS and noticed this: Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. Looking at the article, it is just a tracklisting and 3 sentences of prose, which would seem like an ideal candidate to go into the artist's main article or discography. The "keepers" have found no further sources which would allow expansion of this article to make it notable. Bigger digger (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already mentioned and referenced in the parent article, so I feel there is nothing more to merge.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No good. The Allmusic link was blank and didn't contain the text cited, and all the other sources are not substantial in coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAPOLICY.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does it fail WP:NOTABILITY?
  • Delete and redirect to artist. This article fails WP:NALBUMS, specifically the sentence stated above by Bigger Digger. Until it gets some solid reviews from reliable sources, it can't be here. The keep !votes here seem to amount to nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT. Firestorm Talk 00:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it stated that albums must have "reviews" to establish notability? What supports your claim that the "keeps...amount to nothing more than WP:ILIKEIT?"--Lost Fugitive (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMPORTANT the closing administrator should please note the following discussion that took place on the talk pages of Lost Fugitive and TenPoundHammer:
The information actually was in the link. Look under "Moods" on the left side.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't count. It's still a directory listing and is trivial. No other article mentions the moods that Allmusic uses, and they shouldn't. There are no significant sources at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable (which Dan Seals is), then officially released albums (which Make It Home is) may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." (WP:NALBUMS) I feel the directories do verify the album's existence, and mentions in the press verify the album's notability. I don't understand why a "review" must exist to prove an album's notability. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be a review, just anything that gives non-trivial information on the album. For instance, I can't find any reviews of What Mattered Most online, but the album produced a #1 single and was on Epic Records, This album was on a small indie label, had no singles, and came and went without a trace, just like at least two of Collin Raye's recent albums. The source you added only very trivially mentions the album, and verifies that he hadn't had a hit since 1990. The fact that he hasn't had a hit since 1990 doesn't pertain to this individual album at all. There are only 192 hits for hit, which is not a lot at all. Just verifying that it exists is usually not enough; it has to have more notability beyond "it exists" to warrant an article. We can verify that it exists and nothing else, so just like Collin Raye's Fearless album in 2007 (which was deleted for not having been covered in sources) it shouldn't have an article either. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Track lyrics and listings are not trivial information, neither are commentaries on the album's mood and style. The information about 1990 is to help explain the context of the album and that the performer was at the end of his career. I probably would've voted to keep the Collin Raye album, because I assume at the least the above information was available and it applies to the principle I quoted. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:NALBUMS only says that albums by notable artists may be notable, and album articles that can't be expanded beyond a tracklisting should be deleted or redirected. We can't have an article on everything. There's no hope of ever expanding it beyond the stub that it is. Never mind, it seems the consensus is against you anyway. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't claim the article can't be expanded because it can, descriptions of the content can be added from track lyrics from CMT. And wikipedia is not a democracy, thankfully, and I don't believe the votes are a reflection of wikipedia policy. This isn't some garage band or a non-notable individual, its Dan Seals.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be expanded without delving into original research and citing lyrics sites? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By just explaining what the songs are about, and not going any further, like a synopsis.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It's a legitimate use of a primary source.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primary source material like that is only acceptable in articles that also have significant information from secondary sources as well — i.e., more than just the most basic information that Allmusic gives. Understand that we have to have some sort of cutoff, or every single trivial release by every artist would be included. We can include it in the discography since we know that it exists, but there's just not enough info out there for a full article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cutoff should be at whether enough reliable sources exist to create an article that can be more than a track list. If the lyrics are available at a reliable source, and if the album is documented in several directories, then an article that is more than a track list can be created.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources, sources, sources. It should have an article just for existing, and shouldn't be deleted just because of a lack of sources. Are we all gonna go to jail if we don't add sources? Are we gonna wind up in Folsom Prison singing Johnny Cash's "Folsom Prison Blues" if we don't add sources to verify anything? I understand that it has to be sourced, but i don't understand why it has to do more than just simply exist before an article is created? That rule is gonna make us look less packed with information, which is what we're trying to fill this encyclopedia with aren't we? What's the history of this rule anyway? (I asked the same question about why they banned cell phones/iPod's in schools.) Ryanbstevens (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ryanb and LostFugitive, I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:EVERYTHING. I exist, and yet there is no article about me. No-one is dismissing Dan Seals' notability, it's just that by the time this album came round the world had stopped being interested, and so wikipedia doesn't need to be that interested either. The information will still be there, but wrapped up in his article or discography. I've already suggested on Ryanb's talk page that the effort wasted here would be better expeneded improving some other aspect of the Dan Seals articles, such as getting his discography to Featured list like these ones: WP:Featured Lists#Artist Discographies, but no response. You would get Dan Seals better coverage in wikipedia by massively improving an exisiting, useful, article, than trying to preserve this one, as there's not much more to add to it and very few people will ever notice it. Bigger digger (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those arguments are not being made. I've established a clear criteria above and I have seen no attempts to dispute that criteria.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your criteria are in this sentence, copied from above: "If the lyrics are available at a reliable source, and if the album is documented in several directories, then an article that is more than a track list can be created". You can't base an article around the lyrics, they're copyrighted and will probably fall foul of WP:NOT#LYRICS. You can't use a directory to establish notability: WP:GNG states that substantive and detailed coverage is required, but a directory merely repeats information available on the album. The directory's efforts at description are not "commentary" but simple tags. WP:RS talks about coverage in terms of authors. No author has made an attempt to examine this album, someone has just created a list. That's how the majority of us in this debate see it. You're right, there's no democracy, but you haven't shown how your criteria align with the criteria that have been created through community consensus at all the policies, guidelines and essays we have linked to. Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not being based around the lyrics, they are being used as a source. Lyrics will not be listed at reliable sources such as CMT unless they are notable. I am not arguing that lyrics simply be listed but instead used to explain the tracks as a synopsis. In regards to WP:GNG, descriptions of an album's moods do fall under commentary, it is something that takes a sythesis of the work. Notability is established through reliable sources, and information about this album can be found at reliable sources. Regardless of the dismissive attitute toward directories, they give significant non-trivial information about the album, and in this case, they are reliable. There is no policy that disagrees with my criteria.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read it. No wikipedia is not about everything, but this album surely has enough notability to have an article. This album is more notable than a homemade album that was made by an unsigned band comprised of young teenagers of whose talents have only been recognized by the people living in their neighborhood, but nobody from anyplace else. Ryanbstevens (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boy are you missing the point. There's nothing else we can possibly say about the album. It's a permanent stub. Not all albums are inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained how the article can be expanded, and have developed a reasonable criteria for album notability above. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 20:55, 20 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Make_It_Home&oldid=1140203235"