Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Analogue Bubblebath 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Analogue Bubblebath 5

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Analogue Bubblebath 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was PRODDED by User:Donaldd23 with the rationale "Appears to fail WP:NALBUM", and redirected to another article by Explicit after the PROD expired. However an IP restored the content, claiming that WP:NALBUM doesn't apply to EPs (it does), and invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF. So now we have to come here. This is separate from the "Analogue Bubblebath IV" AfD, but the same sequence of events has brought it here. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 01:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Another similar reference to what Miraclepine found [4], and a passing reference [5]. Both of those are in major publications. Since WP:NALBUM references the GNG, and only mentions excluding things like press releases etc, this puts me in the weak keep camp as well. —siroχo 09:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Siroxo: I can't locate any mention of the album or the band in that Vice link. Don't know if it's worth the trouble to fix, since you mention it only as a passing mention, but I know that Vice URLs can be a bit slippery, so I'm wondering if perhaps you meant to link something else. -- Visviva (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. User:Miraclepine, if you have changed the outcome you seek, please cross out the one that no longer reflects your opinion so things are absolutely clear to the next admin who reviews this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per above, otherwise redirect to discography per nom. Policy-based rationale follows.
    First, the applicable rules: Point 1 of WP:NALBUM affords a presumption of notability if The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. The guideline further clarifies that This criterion includes published works in all forms excepting only school newspapers and press releases. Confusingly, NALBUM seems be operating from a different understanding of what notability is than WP:N, as it goes on to state that Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article (my emphasis). Thinking too hard about the intended relationship between these guidelines is giving me a headache, so I'll just leave it there.
    In addition, WP:EDITCONSENSUS reminds us that Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted.
    Next, the sources: The sources actually cited/linked in the article are either UGC or self-published. But the above-cited sources seem much better: [6], [7] and [8] are three articles that appear to be entirely about the article subject and to be published in independent reliable sources. In addition, this piece is not wholly about the article subject but has a solid paragraph of coverage, which clears the "nontrivial" bar of NALBUM and the GNG. In sum, the article subject seems to solidly meet the requirements of NALBUM point 1.
    Conclusion: The article should probably be kept, under both NALBUM and the GNG, because the EP has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works in what appear to be reliable independent sources. However, NALBUM also calls on us to think hard about whether we really have enough material to support a substantial article here. In this respect I would lean toward merging/redirection, as the total sum of information that can be harvested from these sources is not all that large. But I think there is an overriding concern here. Dismissing the anon's argument as WP:OTHERSTUFF misses the mark. As EDITCONSENSUS recognizes, our best guide to the consensus forged over time among knowledgeable editors as to how coverage in this area should be organized is how editors have actually organized that coverage. The existence of similar articles might reasonably be discounted when considering whether to delete or keep, but is worthy of considerable weight when considering whether to keep or merge/redirect. Therefore I believe a keep is preferable to a redirect here. -- Visviva (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per Viva admin. Okoslavia (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Analogue_Bubblebath_5&oldid=1165440308"