Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damnation (Ride the Madness)

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. Not charting is not, by itself, a reason for deletion. Spinning Spark 14:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damnation (Ride the Madness)

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

Non-notable album; no evidence that it charted or received significant coverage in reliable sources. The only source is one-paragraph review, which falls well short of WP:GNG; and the allmusic.com listing does not include a review. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From before Internet publishing was what it is today, but I was able to find a review originally published in a Christian media magazine, an interview on a ezine discussing the album and even a mention in a published book. I have added these citations to the album so anyone wanting to expand the article will have them ready. No doubt anyone taking the time to delve deeper would find more. Further, an album by a notable artist from a notable record label; something which would typically be allowed an article. J Milburn (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Antwort. Good work, but the first ref provided to Release Magazine is very short (only 219 words). The "further reading" link to Cross Rhythms is also short, at only 232 words, while the interview in Dark Heart Mag has only a few paras on the album. Doesn't look to me like meeting WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." These are clearly more than trivial mentions, and in the case of the two reviews, the album is the main topic of the source material. You're reading more into the guideline than is there; nowhere are details of how many words need to be in the various source articles. Which part of the GNG do you feel that this article does not meet? J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "significant coverage" part. One paragraph is not "significant coverage" . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Look, you're just straight-up wrong here- you're literally ignoring the guideline. Again, let me quote the part you are failing to do so. I'll even put it in bold for you. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." These are not trivial mentions, and, in fact, the album is the main topic of two of the sources, meaning that they not only meet but exceed the requirements of the GNG. You're literally just trying to enforce your own rules which are based upon no guideline or policy I know of. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or AT A MINIMUM merge LOSSLESSLY) - Album is recorded by a notable artist, and should at a minimum, be merged losslessly (per this discussion) because it is properly referenced. That being said, I concer with Milburn on keeping the article separate. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Please read WP:TPG, and please stop using caps. It is a form of shouting.
  Yet again, Jax misrepresents Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)#Merging_of_non-notable_albums. There is no requirement to merge, let alone to merge losslessly. The guidance at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#If_the_subject_is_not_notable remains that info on non-notable topics "may be included in other ways in Wikipedia, provided that certain conditions are met". There is definitely no requirements to splat a splat article with the tracklist of a non-notable album.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I am staying on topic. WP:NALBUMS says "space permitting". For similar reasons, albums and discographies can be split off. IMO, a discography page should rarely/never be written about a non-notable artist, and usually is only done if the discography takes up most of the page (5FDP discography), or the artist page becomes too big (One Direction discography). There is no encyclopedic reason for not including the track times somewhere on Wikipedia. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that removing track times is the same as censoring? The Banner talk 20:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Wiktionary defines censor as "To remove objectionable content". If the content is removed from Wikipedia, its existence on Wikipedia is objected to. The point is that if the information existed on Wikipedia at one time, it can or should be merged into an appropriate article. This happened with Van Canto and No Justice. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like enough coverage to me. See also HM Magazine's review, plus I've got an entry in Mark Allan Powell's Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music I can use to improve the article -- Foetusized (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen No evidence is ever made the charts. The Banner talk 20:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It almost certainly didn't make the charts, but albums can be highly notable even if they don't. We have featured articles on albums that never charted. There is no guideline or policy which says that only albums which charted are notable. J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2013 (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.