Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Vital Chapter

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Vital Chapter

~~Blatant advertising for a~~ non-notable album per WP:MUSIC. I would have suggested a merge to The Panda Band but there is quite literally nothing to merge. (Note: edits to article within an hour of nomination have removed the blatant advertising aspect, but I still argue it should be deleted or merged per the notability criterion as it's really just two tracklists of an album which charted nowhere). Orderinchaos 01:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Orderinchaos 01:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep barely notable, but seems to have some following. Iotha 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs trimming, but consensus has stated before that if a band is notable, so are their albums. This band seems to be notable, so the album should stay. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - The album is notable in that it was released in both Australia and the United States - has recieved significant airplay in both Australia and the US but also in the UK Dan arndt 02:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Band is notable for having won awards in their field. This gives their album some notability per WP:MUSIC, especially independent coverage has been found such as[1].--Kylohk 02:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a blog post. Orderinchaos 02:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have added other independent reviews to justify Dan arndt 02:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like a blog post to me. There may be a community, but it's still like reporting news, I guess. But still, the Australia music online review is sufficient anyways.--Kylohk 02:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howabout the fact that the album has received international airplay in Australia, the US and the UK - just because it didn't chart on the mainstream charts does not make it not notable Dan arndt 03:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the evidence that it did? Orderinchaos 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few references for a start Dan arndt 03:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WUOG 90.5fm - Athens, Georgia
WRUR 88.5fm - Boulder, Colarado

Delete I can't find any information about this band on any national charts, the sources are flimsy at best, and while the WAMI Awards are notable, I don't think any band necessarily gets notability by association with them. Thewinchester ^(talk) 02:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in to The Panda Band There'd be nothing lost in this going into the main band article. —Moondyne 04:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Moondyne. Most arguments on this page are for the notability of the *band*, which is not in dispute, but not for the notability of *this album*. Critical fact - the album has not been a success in any market - no charting positions. One component song's low placing on the Triple J Hottest 100, a statistically unsound survey which does not release its figures or methodology and is based on phone-in and web votes which are easy to stack for low-placed entries, does not accord it notability of any kind. What is here is sufficient to be merged into the Panda Band article however (hence I disagree with the nom that there is "quite literally nothing to merge"). The external links may also need revising as few or none meet Wikipedia's policy on external links. Zivko85 05:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TPH. Album by a notable band is always notable. Long term consensus. Giggy _U^CP 08:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep concur that album is from a notable band - is an international release & should be kept 202.71.164.41 10:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC) · 202.71.164.41 (contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep international release. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC) · This vote may have been canvassed - see diff at [2][reply]
Delete And wikipedia wonders why it is insulted? With stuff like this, we are resigned to being a second-rate encyclopedia. Delete per notability. Twenty Years 13:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iff band is notable than their albums are notable 202.14.152.15 03:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC) · 202.14.152.15 (contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep. The band has had success in both Australia and the US, and this album was nominated the Most Popular Album award at the 2007 WAMi's. --James 03:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User Dan_arndt has engaged in widespread and indiscriminate canvassing for this AfD on the "keep" side - even my talk page was not immune, as I once changed the category on the article. Zivko85 06:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In my defence I think if you check you will find that if you check my contributions you will clearly find I have not breached the requirements of WP:CANVASS as any posts have been 'limited', 'neutral' & "nonpartisan'. I have simply placed messages on those individuals who have made contributions to the article on This Vital Chapter or The Panda Band (with the exception of 'bots') and hadn't already made comment asking they they give their views on whether the article be deleted or not. I have not solicited thier support for it's retention as they need to make up their own minds on the matter. Dan arndt 07:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In accordance with the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (music) 'If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.'Dan arndt 07:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this is not canvassing? "Am happy to see if I can help you out with the above - get it into some form that maybe acceptable - would appreciate if you could assist by supporting the retention of the following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QStik Records and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Vital Chapter". That reads to me, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". This also - "Thanks for the support - appreciated, Could you also make comment regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QStik Records as well?" My suggestion - focus on getting *these* articles into some form that may be acceptable first, then we just might not be here at all. Zivko85 08:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and on re-reading, "then albums may have" is the key word. Zivko85 08:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: what the hell? Albums produced by a notable band are certainly notable themselves. RaNdOm26 09:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, album by a notable band. Why are we even discussing this? Lankiveil 13:31, 29 July 2007 (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.