Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Season 8 Favorite Performances (Adam Lambert album)
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 keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 01:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Season 8 Favorite Performances (Adam Lambert album)[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Season 8 Favorite Performances (Adam Lambert album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable per Wikipedia:NALBUM. Nothing more than a track listing. Has been sourced and subsequently expanded. ℥nding·start 06:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Rationale is wrong because just by looking at the article one can see it is more than a track listing. After a few minutes of searching, I found the Billboard.com reference that shows the album charted at #33, which would easily have it pass WP:NALBUMS. Aspects (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with sources for its charting, it still does not have enough information to warrant its own page. A track listing, infobox, small lead, and two-charts is all this article has. The available sources for the release can easily be added to Adam Lambert discography. ℥nding·start 07:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 06:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, after searching Google you can clearly see that it has extensive coverage in third party publications, that along with charting top 40 on the Billboard 200 creates notability. Nowyouseemescreed 13:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Extensive coverage? With a quick google search, all I see are track listings on various other sites, and fan reviews. The only information we have is of two chart positions, and a known track listing. This can easily be merged in with his discography. ℥nding·start 14:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Allmusic has a page, has charted and a single was released to support the album. Novice7 (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it had a single release, why isn't it noted in the article? This article, in its current state, is bare. If someone would like to expand on it, that would be great, but as of right now, as I said, there's barely anything on it. ℥nding·start 14:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Little more than a track listing which means that this is absolutely not notable per WP:NSONGS. If it could be improved, it might stand a chance. Saying that it charted counts for nothing when discussing albums. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 15:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Satisfy WP:NALBUMS completely, because -
- 1) Musician is notable - Adam Lambert has sold gold in the US and platinum in other countries.
- 2) Album has been referenced in multiple reliable sources - for example in major music publications such as Billboard magazine [1] and MTV [2]. It therefore satisfies notability criterion.
- 3) Article is not just a track listing. It can be extended, and is in the process of being extended. Hzh (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has not received a big edit since it's creation in April of 2010. That's almost a year ago, and it has not changed at all. Are two sources enough to warrant for an article? I don't think so. And just because Adam is a notable musician, does not mean that there has to be articles for all his releases. If the article can get a "background" and "reception" section, among other things, it would be fine. If you wish to expand the article, that would be great. ℥nding·start 16:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are making irrelevant arguments. The article fits the criterion of notability, it has multiple sources. Are you seriously expecting others to list all the possible sources? But since you are too lazy to do the work, here is another - [3]. It is not for you extrapolate what is actually said in the guidelines and demand what must be in the article so that it is not "little more than a track listing". The article can certainly be extended but it is not "little more than a track listing" as it is. Hzh (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lazy? Again, I'll say this, AT THIS MOMENT, THE ARTICLE DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH CONTENT TO WARRANT ITS OWN ARTICLE. If one would like to expand on it to prevent its deletion, that would solve the problem. The problem isn't what is out there, the problem is that the article has pretty much no information on it itself. It certainly is a little more than a track listing. All I see now is an infobox, a small lead, a track list, 2 chart positions, and other charted songs taken from the disco page. Do you see something I'm not seeing? ℥nding·start 18:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the point. This argument would be something else if the article didn't meet notability, but it does. I say add an extend template and move on. If I delete a stub, it is because it didn't chart, and doesn't deserve inclusion anyway. This article deserves a fair chance. I Help, When I Can. [12] 18:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lazy? Again, I'll say this, AT THIS MOMENT, THE ARTICLE DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH CONTENT TO WARRANT ITS OWN ARTICLE. If one would like to expand on it to prevent its deletion, that would solve the problem. The problem isn't what is out there, the problem is that the article has pretty much no information on it itself. It certainly is a little more than a track listing. All I see now is an infobox, a small lead, a track list, 2 chart positions, and other charted songs taken from the disco page. Do you see something I'm not seeing? ℥nding·start 18:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are making irrelevant arguments. The article fits the criterion of notability, it has multiple sources. Are you seriously expecting others to list all the possible sources? But since you are too lazy to do the work, here is another - [3]. It is not for you extrapolate what is actually said in the guidelines and demand what must be in the article so that it is not "little more than a track listing". The article can certainly be extended but it is not "little more than a track listing" as it is. Hzh (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has not received a big edit since it's creation in April of 2010. That's almost a year ago, and it has not changed at all. Are two sources enough to warrant for an article? I don't think so. And just because Adam is a notable musician, does not mean that there has to be articles for all his releases. If the article can get a "background" and "reception" section, among other things, it would be fine. If you wish to expand the article, that would be great. ℥nding·start 16:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the points. But I don't see a point in keeping an article here if there isn't enough information about it. As I said before, this can easily be present in just his discography. The other charted songs section on the page is already there, as well as the charts, and release info. I've searched google and cannot find anything extra on the release to be able to expand on it. ℥nding·start 18:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you can't, doesn't mean no one else can. Has there even been an extend template on the article? I Help, When I Can. [12] 18:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I never claimed so. And no there hasn't, to this article with less than 50 edits to it in the period of a year. From the first look of it, an expansion would not be happening anytime, and after searching for over a half hour about the release, I found not too much. But then again, that's what discussions are for. It looks like people support it being kept. I understand completely what they mean and I agree that it does pass notability guidelines. I know that the reasoning for the deletion was it not passing, but it was in even worse shape at the time. The main thing is that there really isn't enough coverage to support the article to expand. Just because it charted, does not mean there should be an article about it. For example, if a song charted on a chart, and an article was created, but with no other information, should the article stay? If it can be expanded, that would be great. Just at the moment, in my eyes, it fails to be a needed article. ℥nding·start 18:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep making irrelevant argument. The only thing worth saying is that just because you can't find thing searching, doesn't mean it isn't there. You just need to know where to look. It took me just a few minutes looking the relevant places to find the information I want. And you weren't observant from what I can see. For example you claimed that the table came from the discography page, it wasn't. Just a quick glance would you tell that it is different. You no longer have any basis for the nomination, and I would recommend that you withdraw the nomination per WP:SNOW.
- I never claimed so. And no there hasn't, to this article with less than 50 edits to it in the period of a year. From the first look of it, an expansion would not be happening anytime, and after searching for over a half hour about the release, I found not too much. But then again, that's what discussions are for. It looks like people support it being kept. I understand completely what they mean and I agree that it does pass notability guidelines. I know that the reasoning for the deletion was it not passing, but it was in even worse shape at the time. The main thing is that there really isn't enough coverage to support the article to expand. Just because it charted, does not mean there should be an article about it. For example, if a song charted on a chart, and an article was created, but with no other information, should the article stay? If it can be expanded, that would be great. Just at the moment, in my eyes, it fails to be a needed article. ℥nding·start 18:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Argument is that it fails notability when it passes. I Help, When I Can. [12] 17:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, there is more information beyond the tracklisting and hence the nomination is incorrect. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 18:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable and verifiable. To even consider deleting an article because it doesn't have enough content demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia. That is why we have 100 stub tags to put on articles. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2011 (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.