Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tune In, Tokyo...

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 no consensus. Which is what usually happens when two users dominate an entire debate with circular arguments. Suggest discussing possible merger further at relevant talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Tune In, Tokyo...

Tune In, Tokyo... (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)

Non-notable release, fails WP:N and WP:NALBUMS due to lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Was previously redirected from the alternate title Tune In Tokyo in 2010. The only sources cited in the current version are nothing more than tracklists (one of them, Discogs.com is a wiki and therefore not reliable). I've searched the usual places one would expect to find coverage, like Allmusic, but all I can find are tracklistings; no critical commentary or other significant coverage. Google News turns up nothing, regular web search just turns up track listings, fansites, and lyrics sites IllaZilla (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Strong KeepIt doesnt matter if we previously had a page so has is it not notable because i added it? because everything i add is apparently non notable. This is just as notable as live tracks or BBBPP or any other green day album. The article says that a notable is one by a big name artist and thats what green day is. It has just as much info on them and Discogs isnt the only page with a tracklisting there are a few with . And if its not notable try helping the page instead of blanking it without discussion. This page seems to have more info than the other live tracks minus the new ones and you still think their more notable than this? thats makes you a hypocrite only saying what i add isnt notable enough so dont try to delete just because i added it, it has plenty of sources BlackDragon 22:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  Saying that it's notable does not make it so. Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Significant coverage is more than just proof that a thing exists. We have specific notability criteria for albums that explicitly state:

  • An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist to require a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline. 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.

  If all the sources you can find can offer no more than a track listing, that's not enough to justify a stand-alone article. I've already explained what's wrong with the sources: They do not give significant coverage, and are not all reliable. But then, I have already linked these criteria to you several times and you don't appear to fully understand or care about them, so I don't expect that to change now. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  Once Again Strong Keep this page is sourced by reliable sourcese (VH1, ArtistDirect) which name the date, label, recording time, track and members. And the production was from the booklet inside the Album so Since that is from GD its reliable. And again I bring to your attention that Live Tracks has no sources whatsoever and this does and you seem to think it is reliable enough. And im not saying that that page should be deleted either but this one shouldnt and if you think that these arent reliable try to find some? its not that hard but this page is more relaible and sourced that the other early live albums by Green Day is it not??? so thats why it should be kept and not deleted becuase you think it should be. BlackDragon 17:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  I would also again like to bring your attention to BBBPP and Foot In Mouth which you say are more notable than thise page even though they have no refs??? care to say why this page is any less notable than those pages it not you can see that this page should stay because it is notable and has reliable sources BlackDragon 17:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  You do not get to !vote twice. You clearly still have not read WP:NALBUMS, even though I posted the relevant text from it above, or at least you do not seem to understand it or care. You would also do well to read WP:ATA, in particular WP:OTHERSTUFF. The existence, non-existence, or state of quality of other articles s irrelevant to the article under discussion here. As I mentioned in the nomination, the sources you found do not demonstrate significant coverage as required by the notability criteria. I made a good-faith attempt to find significant coverage in the usual places (I've worked on hundreds of album articles; I know where to look) and did not find any. With the sources that are currently available, this article will never be more than an infobox and tracklist. That is why it was redirected in 2010, and that's why it should be deleted now. A lack of significant source coverage is not something you can fix, no matter how good your intentions or how much you love Green Day. If no significant source coverage exists for those other releases, they can be redirected or taken to AfD as well. I'm not threatening to do so, but I am saying they all fall under the same notability criteria. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  OK but what im saying is that you nominated this one which includes some sources before you nominated the others which include none so if they stay this is double the notability of those and should stay. Why dont you try and help me expand it. And are VH1 and ArtistDirect and the booklet inside not reliable because those are the three main sources???? BlackDragon 19:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  An editor nominating one article for deletion is under no obligation to search for and nominate related articles of a similar level of notability (though they often do). Inconsistent enforcement of the deletion policy is a problem which is not the responsibility of any single editor. We are discussing this article (Tune In, Tokyo...), not any other. Please address the concerns raised in the nomination (lack of significant coverage of this album in reliable secondary sources) or do not bother to reply further.

  As I noted in the nomination and in my prior reply, I made a good-faith effort to find any significant coverage of this release in reliable sources (reviews, news reports, etc.). I found none, therefore I cannot expand the article any further. I have done my diligence; If you wish to save the article, it is now your responsibility to demonstrate that Tune In, Tokyo has received 'significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I once again point you to the general notability criteria, which state:

  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

  and

  • We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.

  And for the umpteenth time, I direct you to Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings, which says:

  • That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. 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.

  All the sources you and I can find give us nothing more than a track listing and release details. Regardless of how reliable the sources may be, this is not significant coverage. Because of this, the article cannot be expanded beyond the most basic details, (infobox, tracklist, credits). Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings was written precisely to address this type of situation. Unless you can find some sources that give significant coverage (reviews, news reports, etc.), the topic does not pass the notability threshold. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Not seeing sufficient reliable third-party sourcing other than simple track listings to satisfy the notability criteria at WP:NALBUMS. --DAJF (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  we should keep it because the sources give us When the individual songs were recorded, the track listing and label, producer, release date and the members and production crew how is this not enough stuff, and being as im the only one who has contributed to the page I was expecting others to help make it a little neater and better so why dont you guys help contribute. But like I said the Other live albums have been here for nearly 8 years and have not been deleted. But since the sources are reliable enough its a keep. heres a link to the back cover it list record, track, recording time and others so check it out you guys http://greendaycollection.com/wa_535_p/pa_2htkrc4kwdnfdfh/big_0418.jpg?1lb08ghojqhtj BlackDragon 00:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  Since this was nominated for deletion I have added quite a bit to it and changed it up a lot and have also added a few more sources. It looks more like an article and is more notable now so I really think it should be kept now BlackDragon 02:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? This shows the differences between the time of nomination and now. All you did was add some "notes" on the recording dates and some interwiki links (I don't even think you know what those are). The only "source" you added is a photo of the back cover. You have still entirely failed to address the concerns of the nomination, because you have still failed to demonstrate any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  I have changed it up to make it more clean and easier to understand including changing the recording section and changing the top and some writing. I have also added the instruments that the 2 additional musicians played. I have doubled the categories in it and yes I know what their are Ive been on wikipedia for I believe 2 and a half years. So i know that there are different wiki such as simple, spanish and such others. I have also removed the one you said was a wiki and replaced it with the cover which includes the same info. Im pretty sure the cover is reliable to say what info is on it.

  So what am I supposed to add that I havent, give me an example BlackDragon 04:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  sigh...This is starting to feel like talking to a brick wall. Rather than repeat myself for the umpteenth time, I'll just give you a hint: It begins "significant coverage..." --IllaZilla (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Tune Out, Wikipedia. Unfortunately, there isn't any reliable coverage for this EP. However, it's probably not a good idea to totally delete it. Perhaps a merge to Green Day discography would be more appropriate. But basically, a lack of sources means that this article should probably just, well, tune out. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Do you guys really expect that this album is going to have reviews from American based things. It was released only in Japan so it wasnt released here so it cant have reviews from american places since it wasnt released here. And by the way the 3 sources we have are very reliable. And the page is fairly long as well and im pretty sure this is most of the coverage for it unless some japan thing rated or reviewed it which isnt likely so this page is significant enough to keep. And arent there other stub articles that are kept. This is maybe 2 or 3 times the length of a stub. If you insist on deleting this and the others because the article is to small may I suggest making a Live EPs by Green Day page of some sort and list the 4 EPs there so that the page is longer and this is completely wasted. What do you think BlackDragon 22:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  Yet again, please refer to WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. It does not matter if the sources are reliable if all they give is a tracklisting. That is not significant coverage. You can keep adding window dressing to it all you want but it's still a stub and can never be any more than that if significant secondary source coverage does not exist. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  Although this is the English Wikipedia, sources can be in any language. Even if there is a lack of English sources, the article can still be kept if there are sources in Japanese. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of those as well. I know it's Green Day, but notability isn't inherited. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  The sources are reliable and they give more than a tracklist and being as this page was nominated as soon as I made it, it never got the chance to even be a start class which are aloud to be short tell things are found so I find it unfair to delete so soon or at all BlackDragon 02:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  Links please. And even so, are they significant coverage? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

  "they give more than a tracklist"...no, they don't. Here are all 3 sources currently cited in the article: [1] [2] [3]. All they consist of is the cover art, track list, and credits. Black60dragon clearly does not understand the meaning of "significant coverage", despite my many attempts to explain it to him. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Just to help with Japanese sources, it seems the album was released in Japan also under the title "Bakuhatsu raiv 3!" (爆発ライヴ3!). The Oricon page for that says that it charted for 5 weeks in Japan reaching as high as #29 on the album chart. WP:NALBUMS does not state that charting is sufficient to prove notability, but this is one piece of evidence. I did a brief search in Japanese for that album title, and found plenty of pages, but mostly non-significant coverage. Some may have better luck:Michitaro (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

• I went ahead and added the charting to the page and the name but since the AfD this page has really turned around and has been greatly improved and now that people are taking my ideas to look for Japanese and not English sources we are slowly finding better coverage of this article. So it definitely shouldnt be deleted and the page will slowly just get better and have more coverage. BlackDragon 18:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  You keep saying things like "since the AfD this page has really turned around and has been greatly improved" but that is gross exaggeration. Since the AfD was started the only significant change has been the addition of the oricon chart position, which in itself is not enough to pass NALBUMS (since the chart position can just as easily be mentioned in Green Day discography). You still have not found even one source that gives any kind of significant coverage of this release (ie. that actually says something about it, not just that it exists or what was on it), nor have I seen anything that would make me expect that such coverage exists. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  Your very ignorant. The page has had a lot of work done to it. Here Ill list them for you.

  1. I made the introduction clearer and easier to read and added something
  2. Added the instruments used by the additional musicians
  3. Added charts for the album
  4. Re did the section and added notes on the record dates (which last time is the only significant thing you said I added)
  5. found 2 more sources that state different things
  6. added the Japanese name

  you say this isnt a lot of work so far. Man its progress, Were working on making it bigger so why do you do some hard research under the japanese name as well and try and find something so stop being stubborn and not changing you oppinion. The page is bigger and has a lot more info and is better to understand than when it was created 3 minutes before you deleted it. BlackDragon 22:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

  And you're very full of yourself. Like I said earlier, you can keep putting window dressing on it but it's can never get beyond start-class if significant secondary source coverage does not exist. The introduction is 2 sentences. The credits and recording dates are just data from the album cover, something you'd expect to see even in a stub article. The chart position is just a single data point, one that could (and should) be noted in the discography article and doesn't require a separate article to explain. I do not see "2 more sources that state different things"...the only source that gives anything more than a track listing and credits is the japanese one, and all that gives in addition is a chart position. If you strip away all the stub-class components (infobox, track list, credits, chart table) you'd have a 2-sentence article. It's very clear that you have no idea what "significant coverage" means: This is significant coverage. So is this. Or this and this. This and this are not. I would like to know, in your own words, what you think "significant coverage" means. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Whats the point in deleting this. this is more than a stub. Isnt wikipedia where people go to find info on stuff. If this is deleted the only thing they can find will be that it exist. This way people can find info on this here without having to search for it. And does it really matter if its shorter than american idiot. its longer than plenty other albums. Im still adding to it, Im going through the sources and will continue to do so later. Plus I dont think that the people looking to find info on this would care if its short or any one really, so theres really no use to do so. BlackDragon 16:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  You have made your opposition to deletion quite clear. Please allow others to have their say. Repeating the same things over and over will not save the article. The mere fact that a thing exists does not mean it warrants a stand-alone encyclopedia article (WP:N). You have not added anything of substance to the article, nor can you since it has not received any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is no way for the article to advance beyond Start class without some sort of significant secondary source coverage, and there is no evidence that any such coverage exists. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Despite Black60dragon's rudeness and the lack of sources, this may be indeed notable for being a charting release by a major band. Would, however, need a lot of cleaning up if it were to stay. SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 22:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  Charting is, in and of itself, not enough to demonstrate notability (per WP:NALBUMS). This was only released in Japan & only charted in Japan. Chart positions are already listed alongside releases at Green Day discography, so if that's all there is to say about its reception then it doesn't justify a stand-alone article. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  If I seem rude its because I dont want the page I created and only I worked on, to be deleted. And you say that I "made your opposition to deletion quite clear" then what are you doing. you pretty much made "your supportion to deletion quite clear" Please allow others to have their say. Repeating the same things over and over will not hurt the article.. Ive been doing quite a bit but im the only one who has. If everyone else helped them it would be better. im only 1 person and can only do so much and word it how I would. BlackDragon 00:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

  As the nominator, I am in a position to address points made and to rebut arguments (like yours) that do not address the reasons for which the article was nominated. You keep acting like you've made tons of improvements to the article that should void it from deletion, but as I've mentioned these "improvements" are just window dressing; they mean nothing if they do not entail the addition of references evidencing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. You also keep saying things like "why don't you help me expand it?", "the page will slowly just get better and have more coverage", and "if everyone else helped them it would be better", but those are fallacious argument: It cannot have more coverage, nor can anyone do anything to make it better, if significant secondary source coverage does not exist. You cannot conjure up significant secondary source coverage from thin air: Either it exists now or it doesn't. No one has yet been able to find any or offered convincing evidence that any exists. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

  You want to walk about rude ^^^. You keep saying like "It cannot have more coverage" & "noone can anyone do anything to make it better" how would you know that no coverage exist, you said that before we found the chart. Did you search every website, no you havent you have been to busy deleting every Live EP from Green Day. Try looking for once BlackDragon 01:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)'

  As I said in the nomination, I looked. I made a good-faith effort, checking all the usual places one would expect to find coverage of a release by one of the most popular rock bands of the past 20 years, and came up with nothing more than track listings. That 1 editor found 1 website that gave 1 chart position (which is already covered at Green Day discography) does not convince me that a wealth of significant secondary source coverage lies somewhere out there in the ether. Plenty of good-faith effort has been made to find significant coverage of this EP in reliable secondary sources: no significant coverage has been found. As the only one clamoring to keep this article, the the onus is now on you to prove that such coverage exists, as you keep insisting it must. It is not on anyone else to prove that it doesn't exist, since negative proof is a logical fallacy. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Unfortunately I found no evidence in a search that it meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Track listings and such do not qualify as reliable secondary sources under these guidelines, and a chart position in Japan does not enhance notability since charting is not mentioned in the relevant notability guideline. I allow the possibility that secondary reliable sources could be found in Japanese, but it seems others have looked and found none. --Batard0 (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I think the article could develop. It has problems but I think there is a potential to fix these. There is some secondary source material and perhaps more to be found. So I'm inclined to give this one a bit more time in the hope it can improve and establish a stonger case for notability. Fireflo (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

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.