Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxeneers or the Lion Sleeps When Its Antelope Go Home

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. (non-admin closure) TheChronium 06:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oxeneers or the Lion Sleeps When Its Antelope Go Home[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)

The Allmusic blurb is even more perfunctory than most of their blurbs. It's literally a single sentence by a user, not staff. The Pitchfork review is also by a contributor, not staff, and no way to tell if there is editorial oversight of that. The third review is a dead link, but from a site which does not appear to have editorial oversight. Searches turned up zilch. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There being a metacritic score should be almost an automatic criteria that it's received enough coverage to meet notability requirements. Allmusic lists their rating without a blurb; they do that semi-frequently. All of these sources are discussed under WP:A/S and listed as permissible.RF23 (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but it's not. And since that's your only argument, still fails NALBUMS and GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that there are 5 sources that are accepted notable sources per WP:A/S. These reviews clear criteria 1 of WP:NALBUMS.RF23 (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Discussed in several papers, including The Washington Post, The Morning Call, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Daily Herald, Boston Herald, The Boston Globe, Sunday Herald-Sun, among others. Some reviews/articles are longer than others, and some seem to be in conjunction with tour coverage, but they're major dailies across the US and Australia. I agree with Onel that it's not great for an album article to have only box ratings, without production and critical reception prose, but this seems to have been reviewed widely. I think the Pitchfork review is ok--it's still subject to their editorial policies and oversight, unlike the user submissions at Sputnikmusic and Punknews.org? Maybe another editor will weigh in. I'm no longer sure of the status of AbsolutePunk... Caro7200 (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Sputnik and Punknews reviews are staff reviews; allowed under WP:A/S.RF23 (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know the two in this article are--my meaning was that I think all Pitchfork reviews are edited, and that Pitchfork does not rely on unedited user submissions. Caro7200 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NALBUM per RF's and Caro's arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:01, 10 July 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.