Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1,000 Grams (2nd nomination)

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. Discussion of a merge can and should continue on the relevant talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1,000 Grams

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

Non-notable mixtape. Fails WP:MUSIC. SummerPhD (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Young Jeezy discography#Mixtapes per WP:NALBUM. Keep. Aside from a few articles on MTV, I couldn't find any significant coverage online, and I don't think this is quite enough to justify a separate article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really should have looked at the previous deletion debate before commenting here. Gongshow's sources, particularly this one, look like enough to satisfy WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ *Merge No significant chart positions, no awards, no significant sales, no gold/platinum certifications, no major club rotations, heavily sampled w/o fully original context, etc, etc. Pretty much fails WP:MUSICBIO. Яεñ99 (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Received sufficient coverage to be considered notable. --Michig (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources presented in the previous AfD. My bad for not adding them before. I've now included them. With that coverage, the mixtape appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 00:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per The Washington Post listed as a source, they give this caption quotation under his picture; Jeezy's latest mixtape isn't much more than a placeholder. (Michael Blackwell). The Fader says in part; It’s mostly him rapping over other people’s stuff, which, for 75% of the rap industry usually means that we should all batten down the hatches and prepare for watered down versions of the the original. These reviews hardly speak volumes as to the merits of the "recording". The reviews discuss rehash, etc. With revues like that, who needs enemies? Can we really say; "This thing isn't particularly remarkable" and still call it WP:GNG? Just asking, but maybe if we wait on his actual next release, and not this "mix hold-over," we could find some new music to attribute quality to. Яεñ99 (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS don't require that the sources like the album under discussion, it just requires that they cover it. As long as the coverage isn't routine track listings or release dates, it doesn't matter what the sources' opinion of the album is. If the coverage exists, then the album is notable, no matter what the opinions expressed in the coverage are. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. A review that amounts to "This recording is meh and here are a bunch of words to explain why" is exactly what significant coverage is: a source that addresses the subject directly in detail. An album does not have to be considered good to be notable. Gongshow ^Talk 15:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're preaching to the choir here - as a prior record promoter for Warner Bros - Elektra/Asylum, my boss in NYC used to tell me the same thing unfortunately; "Son, you don't have to like the piece of "music", you just have to get it on the air. Or else." This "mixology" may be meh at best, but it probably "ranks" up there with quite a few releases we dropped mass money on only to be laughed off the airwaves by the critics. No need to remind me that often what "stinks" the most is what you remember when you look into the dumpster. "Notable crap"...what an oxymoron. This "mix" should run for public office ;) However, it most certainly does not deserve a separate page. Do us a favor and at least merge this off into nowhere so we aren't reminded of it quite so often (PS: sources like "The Fader", "Pitchfork Media", and "The Boombox" aren't particularly stellar industry sources, and give the appearance of opinion pieces of lesser quality). Яεñ99 (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2012 (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.