Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The TryForce

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 redirect to Starbomb. Nothing very clear in the way of consensus but what is clear is that there is no significant support for keeping a standalone page. The best fit appears to be 'redirect' but with the history retained, under the redirect, to allow any sourced content to be merged as a subsequent editorial action. Just Chilling (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The TryForce[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)

Mburrell recently made an argument against this notability of this album, stating as follows, "The album's wiki-article citations don't appear to include any news coverage, although it does have chart rankings. [...] Web search found no news coverage of the album. (Multiple independent source requirement to show notability)." They later clarified that this was a general notability guideline (WP:GNG) issue. It was promptly removed from List of 2019 albums. If this album does fail GNG, then surely it is not viable to be an article topic. I've decided to open this up for debate since it not only concerns the future of this article, but also the future of List of 2019 albums and lists similar to it. I have decided to stay neutral in this conversation. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 08:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 08:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No coverage? There's this. I'm not sure why it would be removed from a list article while we still have an article on it. Subjects don't have to satisfy the clunky GNG to have articles. The fact that this charted in so many places makes it worth covering. Whether as a standalone article or within the band article should be the question. The chart placings at least need to be in the band article. It shouldn't be at AfD. --Michig (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and comment on prior comment. I am not arguing for the deletion of the article for Starbomb's The Tryforce although I don't think it is well supported. The question for AfD is if the article for the album is non-notable or notable. That is covered under the Wikipedia project for Notability (music), under the paragraph of Recordings WP:NALBUM and the follow-up sub-paragraph of albums. Per the album sub-paragraph, if the album meets the general notability guideline, WP:GNG, it merits a standalone article. Otherwise, per the recordings main paragraph, the album must meet any of 7 criteria. Criteria number 2 is that the album should have appeared on any country's national music chart, which The TryForce has done so. Therefore, using criteria provided by Wikipedia, the article is adequate to be kept even without significant reliable news sources.

Since PhilipTerryGraham mentions the future of List of 2019 albums, I will expand on the criteria for listing albums and why The TryForce is inadequate to be listed there. A criteria should be selected for inclusion of data on lists, specifically for large lists. The list of albums for various years from 2005 to 2019 tend to be large lists, with about five of them on the Wikipedia database for longest articles Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles by size, so in general the lists have been regulated by a criteria for notability, specifically the general notability guideline WP:GNG, which has at it's paragraph header the statement "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The paragraph then goes on to define the key words in the sentence, such as significant coverage and reliable. Using this criteria, The TryForce fails general notability, and should not be included on the "List of 2019 albums", even if it has an Wikipedia article. There is criteria for keeping articles, and there are criteria for including items on lists, and they are not mutually inclusive. As a side-note, the List of 2017 albums and the List of 2016 albums were subject to a discussion and a mandate to reduce size of the lists, which is one reason strict enforcement of notability requirements was imposed on the other lists in the series

Geek.com mentioned by Michig does not appear to be a news website, looks like a blog or fansite. When I look it up in Wikipedia, Geek.com is described as a technology news weblog. Wikipedia has a project page for listing reliable sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and it is against personal and group blogs, which leaves open to interpretation organized blogs. Mburrell (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Geek.com. It may have started as an amateur website back in 1996, but since been sold a few times and has been a commercial website for many years, now owned by Ziff Davis and run with a professional staff. It isn't a blog. --Michig (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I encourage you to go to the Geek.com article and edit it to reflect current information, with supportive citations. For my other comments, one good news source citation still fails the need for signficant coverage (more than one, preferably four or more in my mind. Still, that goes towards my Keep vote for The TryForce album article. Mburrell (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Starbomb with any sourced/relevant information merged to the article. I can understand some limited notability being demonstrated with the sources and the chart placement so I am opposed to a deletion, but I do not see enough coverage to support an independent article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2019 (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.