Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somersault (Chicane album)

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) Tim Song (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somersault (Chicane album)[edit]

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

may possibly fail notability. All referances in article are to reviews and the content is lacking Alan - talk 08:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Call me ignorant, but I don't get it. Why so many why non-notability claims and proposals for deletion for Chicane and his various album/song pages? For this one, what do you mean "content is lacking?" There are loads of album articles with far less content that this one, which have been allowed to survive with stub tags, which are encouragements for improvement by the WP community. And except for the cheesy fanzines, aren't reviews independent third-party sources if they are by established publications like Q and Virgin Media? I advise a closer consideration of the difference between non-notable and stub. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 11:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's very simple. Just because an artist has a song that did well on a chart, doesn't mean it needs it's own article. Most of his songs don't ahve enough on them to constitute their own articles. The info can be left on the main article instead of people having to click to another page jsut to see one sentance and a single chart peak position. Another way to put it is, jsut because something can be done, doesn't mean it has to be done. If the articles had more context, if the songs were mroe notable (used in tv and/or movies, had contraversy, had a story behind the lyrics, etc.. then it would be a lot differant, the articles would be worth having and reading, but as it stands, there's nothing there! Alan - talk 18:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NALBUMS, "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Chicane is a notable artist. And it's not like the article consists solely of a track listing; there is sufficient information to meet WP:N. Gongshow ^Talk 18:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily notable enough for an article. Presumably when the nominator searched for additional searches per WP:BEFORE he found this from Billboard magazine which is the second Google Books result, and this and this from the London Evening Standard from Google News? What about this from the BBC and this from the first few pages of Google results? Prehaps the nominator should acquaint themselves with WP:BEFORE and also our notability guidelines before wasting our time with these nominations? Articles will get deleted if the subjects lack notability as defined by the community, not because one editor doesn't find them interesting enough.--Michig (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the News UK archive I can also add reviews from the Birmingham Mail and the Daily Record, and substantial articles discussing the issues around the album's delayed release and problems with piracy from The Independent and the Belfast Telegraph. --Michig (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This album is plenty notable. Captain panda 03:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Heh, what? OOODDD (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Keep: Notable! - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2009 (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.