Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loft Music

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Loft Music

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

This is one of a series of new articles on recordings by Thea Gilmore. Which I favour redirecting to the artist. My change to a redirect was undone by the page creator; subsequently user:Boleyn prodded it but the prod was removed by user:Michig with the edit summary "deproded - unsourced but notable". However, a quick search did not throw up anything that I consider solid enough to confer notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just a quick Google found reviews from PopMatters and the Manchester Evening News, with further coverage here. A more thorough search, including print sources, would almost certainly find more. --Michig (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Here's another one - the Boston Globe picking it in their top albums of 2005. --Michig (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You appear to have also AfD tagged Rules For Jokers but the tag links to this discussion, where it has not been bundled. Two reviews were also easily found for this album ([1], [2]). --Michig (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing so while you added the above. I am not really convinced by the references.TheLongTone (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop bundling AFDs like this? Not only have you bungled the implementation of these bundled AFDs multiple times now, but separate subjects like this really shouldn't be bundled anyways. The notability of these two releases are completely separate situations, just as they were with Thrash Anthems and Thrash Anthems II you've done recently. Sergecross73 msg me 15:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 3 hours, and you still haven't addended it. Nor should you - they are 2 separate albums with 2 separate scenarios neededing to be discussed for their notability. I've removed the notice from the Rules For Jokers page. If you want to discuss it, create a proper separate AFD discussion for it. It does not belong here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep: nothing wrong with the PopMatters and Boston Globe reviews, and although it's a local paper, the Manchester Evening News is one of the UK's best-known and most respected local papers, and as Gilmore isn't from Manchester, it can't be accused of being biased to promoting local artists. It's true that one or two more reviews from music magazines would help to establish notability, but as Gilmore's previous album Avalanche was her chart breakthrough, and this album contains cover versions of many well-known songs, I'd be pretty confident that this record attracted enough attention to be reviewed in Q, and possibly in Mojo and Uncut as well. It looks like the album was released in June 2004, rather than 2003, as stated in the article at present. Richard3120 (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Michig's sources above. That's enough to meet the WP:GNG. (Especially stuff like PopMatters and Boston Globe - that's pretty high level stuff.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2018 (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.