Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sugarfix

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator Niteshift36 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sugarfix[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. No evidence that the album ever charted at Allmusic or Billboard. No evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. Band is of questionable notability. Simply can't find anything notable about this album. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Dwarves are notable, and so is the album per WP:NALBUMS: "In general, 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." Reviews, etc here. Lugnuts (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key word is "may". Look at the rest of NALBUMS: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.". The article is a single sentence and a track listing. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable album by clearly notable band, with coverage in several reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So where is the coverage? One source you use is one page, yet that source is used in at least 7 different articles. How significant can the coverage of each album be if at least 7 of them are on the same page? Can't be that in depth. And do one paragraph reviews really even count as significant coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nonconstructive nitpicking over meaning of the term "Significant." I repeat my vote and comment from this discussion. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I repeat, the word significant was placed in the criteria for a reason. If you don't like it, get it changed. But until then, it is there and following the criteria isn't "nitpicking". Niteshift36 (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Assuming good faith that there is significant coverage in the offline newspaper articles. Those, along with the Allmusic review, are enough to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. Kudos to Michig and others who have helped expand these Dwarves articles. Gongshow ^Talk 06:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we supposed to cite those offline sources? What happened to WP:V? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that page numbers would be appropriate in those instances. Gongshow ^Talk 07:19, 8 February 2010 (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.