Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Indestructible Choc Boi Nation

Add links
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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Indestructible Choc Boi Nation[edit]

The Indestructible Choc Boi Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN comp album, didn't chart, fails WP:NALBUM. There may be a WP:WALLEDGARDEN here wrt the label and artists, so do not presume notability based on a bluelink within the article. MSJapan (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 23:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 23:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per sources noted by Versace1608, the album passes WP:GNG. @MSJapan:, is album charting the only criterion for notability in WP:MUSIC? I know of an AfD thread on almost 30 singles by Drake which were deleted and redirected. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it's by far the easiest, and here's why. WP:NMUSIC has three main sets of notability policies (for musicians, albums, and songs). The one that applies here is WP:NALBUM. The problem with relying solely on coverage is this - the coverage needs to be WP:RS, and that's often hard to determine. For example, this sources given here may be OK, but some of the stuff I've seen in other articles frim the same sources is or borders on gossip - one of the sources on Ruby Gyang was all about why her baby daddy wasn't in her video, and I'm sorry, but that's not appropriate encyclopedic material. Gossip/tabloid coverage in a source calls into question the quality of the source overall, and it's not "because it's Nigeria" - we don't take any gossip rag or tabloid from any country as WP:RS, and there have been a lot of discussions on whether sources are reliable. We have a an entire noticeboard for that.
Honestly, some of the sources just aren't helpful in determining notability via coverage. I read the 360Nobs piece, and it hardly talks about the album; it talks about everything going on around the album, and that's closer to coverage of the label than it is the album. BellaNaija is also not a quality source once one reads the content - it's a transcript of two radio hosts talking back and forth, not a professionally-written article. The Daily Mirror review was written by the webmaster for the site, so it's hard to say whether it's under the same sort of editorial control. So there's legitimate questions here, and they are the same questions that apply to all sources. However, all of the other criteria - charting, a gold/platinum record, major music award, national airplay, etc., is objective - it either is, or it is not. The artist/record/song either got the award or didn't. The artist/record/song either got the chart position or didn't. There's no subjectivity involved.
The Drake stuff was probably because we have a policy that says "existence is not notability"; I don't think Drake had all thirty of those singles chart, and the fact that they were released isn't sufficient for an article - we are very clear on this. As far as songs go, charting is about the only reason to have an article on a song - otherwise there's not much to say that couldn't be said as part of the album article, even if it's soundtrack placement. The stand-alone songs we do have articles on are usually because they're significant to the genre ("Rapper's Delight"), or have been covered extensively ("Knockin' on Heaven's Door"). Even looking at List of songs recorded by the Beatles, not everything there has its own article because of the Bealtes alone. Some have no article, and some redirect to an article on the song independent of any group. That may be a bad choice of example, because almost everything the Beatles did was extensively written about, from song composition on up, in book-length form. Even Because (Beatles song) has ten sources and has been covered over 20 times. MSJapan (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what you say, you cannot deny the fact that this album meets WP:GNG. Again I repeat, the websites I cited here have editorial oversight. How many sources does one need to provide before you're going to agree that this album meets WP:GNG? An article doesn't need to have a fix number of sources in order for it to be considered notable. The fact of the matter is that this album has been discussed in multiple (more than one) independent reliable sources.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 19:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MSJapan: You are nitpicking here simply because you cannot deny the fact the album meets WP:GNG. You are now questioning Nigerian Entertainment Today as a reliable source, smh.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 19:34, 13 August 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Indestructible_Choc_Boi_Nation&oldid=1143719458"