Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meat Light

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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 02:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meat Light[edit]

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

This article provides no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" with regard to the subject. Its only source is the artist's web site. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is of certain interest in a series of similar articles, as can be followed in the chronology timeline in the inforbox. Removing this article will cause interruption of that chronology. - DVdm (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DVdm: You will need to develop a stronger argument to keep this article, preferably by either listing articles supporting that it has received significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources in this AfD or incorporating them into the article itself. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: There's some comments in prnewswire.com, allmusic.com and thatericalper.com. Google gets about 64,800 hits, many of which commercial. Would any of this be helpful? - DVdm (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DVdm: The sources appear to be helpful (particularly the AllMusic and Prnewswire sources). Just remember that the amount of hits something gets on Google does not automatically equate to notability. Aoba47 (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZAPPAtite. - DVdm (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No individual notability that meets GNG. I'd like to point out that Pr NewsWire will never meet the independent sources part of the GNG, because the subjects of their articles pay to have their press releases published there. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Struck my !vote. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Makes sense to me; thank you for the clarification. Not sure what I was thinking there lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added three references to the article, which I believe are sufficient to establish that the album in question meets the notability criteria at WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. I would request other editors to review this and reassess what they have posted here. Thanks. @Aoba47 and Exemplo347: — Mudwater^(Talk) 22:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think (and this is just my opinion so I look forward to hearing from other contributors) that the main question is whether or not there is enough coverage to warrant a separate article outside of the main article on the artist. Looking through the sources that you have provided, there are very good. The "Rolling Stone" and "AllMusic" articles provide a good start for a "Reception" section and some information on the songs to put some information on the song's composition. The Relix source is not as good; it has some good information, but overall the album only has a brief mention in that source. I am assuming the Zappa source would be used to supply the production and recording information about the album (akin to liner notes). I am definitely seeing your side of the argument as these sources do point to something, but I am still not 100% convinced about the subject's notability from three additional sources. If possible, it would be appreciated if you track more down. With the additions of these sources, I am not 100% either way so I will just strike my comment until I hear from other more experienced users about this issue. Aoba47 (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that having an AllMusic review as well as a write-up in Rolling Stone should be good enough for establishing that an album is notable. The Relix article is more for giving some context for the production. But for whatever it's worth, here are two pretty nice essays that I haven't added to the article as references. They probably "don't count", because they're published on blogging sites. Plain and Fancy; The Resentment Listener — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, here's another good reference, and I just added it to the article. It's by Eric Alper. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient coverage in the sources identified above (Allmusic, Rolling Stone, Eric Alper) to support a standalone article; meet WP:NALBUM. Gongshow talk 01:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Changing my vote as sufficient coverage has been proven through sources. Aoba47 (talk) 15:08, 10 April 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.