Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medicinals

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. Feel free to start an RM if there's a desire to discuss the title further. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medicinals[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Article contains one review from a website I've never heard of. Whether that site is reliable or not, I couldn't tell you, but I can say that I didn't find any other reliable coverage on this album in my search. Redirect to Timber_Timbre#Albums. QuietHere (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada. QuietHere (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cedar Shakes. QuietHere (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Album did not chart and I found no RS reviews, only passing mentions in the context of the band. Regarding the existing source, obscuresound.com is a blog, so WP:SPS applies. Jfire (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per the sourcing found by Bearcat. (In my defense, the Exclaim! review does not appear on the first page of search results for me, and the coverage in Ontario papers is not indexed by Wikipedia Library.) Jfire (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll grant that this is the album before this band really broke through in a big way, so there hasn't been as much written about it as there has been about the albums that came after it, but it was not at all difficult to find more sourcing for it than the nomination suggests — it's already up to four footnotes now, all from reliable sources. (One of which, further, was easily found in the first page of a simple Google search, even if the others required a bit more effort to locate.) I will grant that 10 to 15 years ago, Wikipedia's notability standard for albums was "any album recorded by a notable band is 'inherently' notable regardless of sourcing issues", and has since wisely shifted away from that toward "the album's notability has to be individually established by sourcing that's actually about the album itself", so sometimes old articles created under the old notability standards are indeed poorly sourced — but they are sometimes salvageable with stronger sourcing than the rules that were applicable in 2010 required. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems improvable. Prob rename tho. Ought to point to Medicinal. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Always love to see these things end in keeps with improved articles. I guess I missed that Exclaim! article, surprising as that is. I definitely don't remember seeing it, and while even if I had I still wouldn't've called this notable on that alone, the rest of the coverage Bearcat found looks like it seals the deal.

As for the renaming proposal, I had thought about that as well, but I don't see any other significant uses of the word "medicinals" on the site aside from the PJ Harvey song. The word doesn't even appear on Medicine (disambiguation), nor does its singular form. Disambiguating seems unnecessary to me. QuietHere (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NALBUM per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2023 (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.