Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Post-Grunge

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Post-Grunge[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)

Contested PROD. This compilation album fails WP:NMUSIC. It cites one source, which is only a passing mention (two sentences) in a book. I can not find any significant coverage or other evidence of notability. Lennart97 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~Calling something "post-grunge" as early as 1994 was pretty audacious,~~ but the album received no notice and only appears as a listing in various retail and directory sites. This article serves the exact same function, but WP is an encyclopedia and not a directory. Also note the preponderance of non-notable bands on the compilation, and the notable bands don't seem to have discussed their inclusion on it too much. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC) (First half-sentence stricken due to its offensiveness for the overly sensitive.)[reply]

Your "delete" description is pretty much a giant red herring. We're not here to comment on whether we like the name or not of the album and it's not relevant to the discussion. Furthermore, the article has a mention in an actual book referenced on the article which goes above and beyond it being a mere directory, but you seem to neglect that fact. The bands being discussed on the compilation is also irrelevant. Yeah the article is skimpy, but your reasoning is flawed. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Audacious" is a compliment, kind sir. According to dictionary.com: 1) bold, daring, fearless; 2) original, highly inventive. Consider using that site to look up "red herring", "rubbish", and "inquisition" as well, all of which you used incorrectly when stating your disagreement with my vote. The cited book (Street Style in America) is clearly visible in Google Books, and all it does is mention the album's existence in a single sentence. That does not qualify for "significant coverage" at the general notability guideline, and there is no evidence that the album passes any of the seven requirements at the album notability guidelines just because it exists. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I typically look up words all the time at m-w, just to be sure. When I used these words, it was no exception, and I did not use them in error. I took your use of the word audacious as the reckless or rash version, because you also made what I feel is a derogatory statement about the artists included on the compilation. Together, it would seem you aren't praising the work. My main point is that half of the substance of your comment is a non-sequitur, or red herring. It can lead to conversations like these which are neither here nor there. If you had simply commented about NALBUM or GNG, that would have sufficed, but to me, it appeared as if you went out of your way to disparage the work in a comment period about the merit (or lack thereof) of the article. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. All of this because of one half of a sentence in which I added some colorful language on the album's title. Ignore that "non-sequitur" of "disparagement" if it hurts your feelings, and then find that it is audaciously unworthy of your apoplexy, because 95% of everything I have said is about the album's lack of notability per WP policies already described multiple times. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And so it continues. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This comp. album is cited by an actual book, which is more than many full-fledged albums by popular groups can make claim to. I think that given some interest Five Fingers of Funk could have a Wikipedia article in the future and may be able to reference this article. I linked Nero's Rome to the Dandy Warhols, their followup act. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the article passes WP:GNG based on this short book mention alone? That would require a very different understanding of "significant coverage" than what the guideline says it is. Also, those full-fledged albums by popular groups you speak of, while irrelevant to this discussion, should obviously be deleted too, so I'm not sure how that's an argument for keeping. Lennart97 (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mostly saying the vote by Doomsdayer520 is faulty by way of an initial rubbish inquisition and a later one too. The premise that is laid out by them is a red herring and of no use. I'm fully aware my statement looks like "whataboutism" and I'm not trying to argue along those lines. No doubt many of those albums have other good articles to keep them afloat. For what it's worth I added another reference. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leitmotiv, I noticed your PAs on another editor above. I would strongly suggest you strike these comments; I'm certain this was just an unfortunate choice of words on your part. // Timothy :: talk 15:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, only because they have acknowledged their comment was meant as a compliment. Still not on topic though. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Would you mind quoting the relevant passage from that second reference, as it's offline? Also, I'll just ping Doomsdayer520 in case they're not watching this page, as they may want to reply to the above. Lennart97 (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I edited into the article is about the extent of it. It discusses Elemental Records (the publisher of the album) along with 4 other indie labels operating on shoestring budgets. For Elemental they talk with the owner and briefly discuss Northwest Ungrunge as being their first offering and how most of those bands quickly dissolved. The first page shows the owner holding two albums in his hands (one of Floater's Sink, the other of Northwest Post-Grunge). The second page has a listing of all 5 indie label offerings, including Post-Grunge. The Register-Guard is available on Google's newspaper archive. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article does not meet GNG or NALBUM. Sources in the article do not meet SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 15:27, 12 March 2021 (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.