Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wait (Phase 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 redirect to Phase (band). Fully protect if necessary. (non-admin closure) f e minist 15:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wait (Phase album)[edit]

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

Article doesn't comply to both General Notability and Notability:Music guidances.--SubRE (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Only it does... :) any experienced wikipedian with music background can see with a bit of googling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asouko (talk • contribs) 10:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources are either primary or not in-depth about the subject. Nothing here to establish why this album is notable.--Darth Mike^(talk) 17:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep *You are absolutely ignorant... we need indie rock experts here not your personal views... the BBC thing covers it... go read what rotation is... It's not down to your personal opinion on what's notable... Mid range acts have encyclopedic interest... their fans pack clubs and their fans buy records... You don't know anything about music... Google rolling stones sticky fingers, arguably the biggest band and their most known record and let me know how many non primary mentions you will find let alone, king crimson, etc. or a big mid range band... Post punk revival is a niche genre, but let it to the experts to decide you can't just do things because of spite... I can start pasting links I found but unless experts on the matter comment I don't see how this is constructiveMusicPatrol (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MusicPatrol: consider yourself warned. Please remain civil, even if you disagree with a certain opinion. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 12:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more, although the article seems to meet the notability criteria. I guess it's subject of where you are in the world and what's your search engine. 3 years is a lot of time for an album and 404's are taking their toll. This place is for constructive discussion and knowledge sharing, not rivalry between the users! Peace brothers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.229.76 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I will go with keep as well, done some edits, meet's notability criteria, it certainly needs to be worked on, but I wouldn't say it should be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.229.76 (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article can be fixed, deleting should be the last resort! Asouko (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how many do you need and in how many languages? It does pass general notability One, two, three, obviously the magazine that has Eric Burdon interviewed that has their review and interview and is a reference in the article is great too, or the cover/co-operation with them being discussed in Rooms Magazine... Asouko (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't why are you removing big chunks of text @SubRE: while admins and experienced editors are more careful... The_Cheerful_Insanity_of_Giles,_Giles_and_Fripp, or what is this doing in here A Social Grace, I don't get your fixation but the articles are totally fixable and notable and parts of progressive rock wiki project Asouko (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just to sum up... We know how hard it is to prove a negative, please reread all the comments above, the article should stay and I will improve it in time, there is material for it in the internet and magazines. You can't just erase an article just because someone woke up on the wrong side and decided to tagbomb for whatever reason, especially when experienced editors have tweaked the article in the past and never left a tag, notability once established is not going away... there are enough sources to prove notability Asouko (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article says that something was "designed by the respected in the field of commerce artist, Alexis Marcou". Hmmm. Of course, "the respected artist Alexis Marcou" would be perfectly idiomatic and grammatical. (Yes, it's somewhat peacocky and unencyclopedic, but this is a separate issue.) However, using a preposition phrase to modify an adjective used attributively, without moving that adjective, brings a result that's unidiomatic at best. This infelicity isn't of a kind that I often encounter. But this page on the band's own website says: "All complimented by the famous for his Marvel and DC Comics works Bill Sienkiewicz". I start to wonder if the two writers could be related. -- Hoary (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC) ...typo fixed Hoary (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about whoever did it inspired by a press release? Somebody pinged my but I can't find the link really could you help Hoary? MusicPatrol (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not nearly enough in-depth coverage about the album from independent, reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG, and nothing in the article suggests it passes WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you didn't have a proper look there, having charted on last.fm and having songs aired on BBC aside from the reviews should be a strong enough proof for you that it should be kept MusicPatrol (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet [[[WP:NALBUM]] and significant RS coverage not found. I'd normally say "Redirect" to the band (Phase (band)) but given the amount of SPA editing, best deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last time round - read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions first before commenting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the artist's article (or selective merge of any claims that can be reliably sourced). This recording is not notable. It has not been widely reviewed or received substantial media coverage. Being aired a few times on BBC 6 Music is not sufficient to establish notability (being playlisted on daytime radio, perhaps - although the criteria in WP:NALBUM do not guarantee notability if sources do not exist). The last.fm chart is not a reliable chart per Wikipedia:Record charts. The usual way to say that an album is notable is to point to reviews and other coverage in reliable sources such as music magazines, websites written and edited by professional journalists/critics, newspapers, academic/scholarly publications, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reviews mentioned in the comments above and they pass the neutral point of view and reliability criteria, I could add them tomorrow if I'll have a second MusicPatrol (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2017 (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.