Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the Faxed Atmosphere

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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Faxed Atmosphere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Album from a band without an article. I think the only reliable source is the Stylus Magazine one. Orphan. Secretlondon (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (article creator) I'm unsure under what policies this is being nominated. Are you claiming (also with reference to the DYK nomination) that it doesn't meet WP:GNG? Neither the orphan status nor the lack of existence of an article about the band are valid reasons for deletion. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (me again) per WP:GNG. WP:NALBUMS states ... an album does not need to be by a notable artist to require a standalone article if it meets the General notability guideline. More seems to have been written about the album than the band, hence the article content. While I concede that the nominator does have a point about the quality and focus of some of the sources, I don't see the problem with adequacy.net or PopMatters. There is, in my view, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (The "significant coverage" is that the articles address the subject directly in detail, with at least 3 of the sources I found which discuss the album itself (Stylus Magazine, PopMatters & adequacy.net) meeting WP:RS.) I strongly believe that this is a well researched factual article and is of encyclopedic value. The other RSs address related topics, and belong in this article unless someone can propose a more appropriate home for all of this content.

For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that I have no personal or professional connections with any of persons linked to the subject(s) of this article. I've not even listened to any of the music and therefore have no personal opinion regarding its style either! -- Trevj (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I went through the references. I found 3 potentially wp:suitable coverages, all were somewhat short reviews. North8000 (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (without prejudice) - There used to be a distinct Wikipedia policy that I can't find right now (it might have gone out of style) that a band has to have its own article before the notability of its albums is even discussed. Regardless of whether that's still official policy, I suggest that this album article be deleted for the time being, but that some of its sources be used as a foundation for an article about the band. If that band article survives on its own merits, then in the future it will be worth discussing the merits of the albums.--DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It actually seems that the threshold for an album is much lower than for a band. For an album it is just the general notability guideline, which feels wrong. If a band isn't eligible having their albums is strange.Secretlondon (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It may seem strange, but perhaps does actually make some sense. Audience numbers (both listeners and reviewers) for recorded music are likely to be many times greater than for the corresponding live band. This is particularly the case for bands who don't tour extensively. I've never been in a band and am not involved in the music business, but I imagine that one sends one's album off to reviewers (or if fortunate, they make a direct request!) and if such reviewers find it interesting (i.e. notable) they write about it. If they find it run-of-the-mill then they're less likely to write about it. In fact, I did do a couple of music reviews myself for a student publication once, and seem to recall the editor had a stack of CDs to dole out. -- Trevj (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG applies both to artists and albums: "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on a person, band, or musical work that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline" (WP:NMUSIC) - hence the GNG is sufficient for band and work. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NALBUMS. I consider the tiny spate of initial reviews to be a WP:ONEEVENT (that is, the mere release of the album led to its reviews, and there is no indication of ongoing or subsequent coverage in independent sources). --→gab 24dot grab← 13:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NALBUMS refers to WP:GNG, which I believe is met. WP:ONEEVENT is not a valid argument in this case, because it applies to people, rather than music releases. In any case, WP:NOTTEMPORARY also requires consideration. -- Trevj (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with the bleedingly obvious statement that "WP:NALBUMS refers to WP:GNG", but I disagree that the subject meets either the specific section I cited or the entire guideline invoked by User:Trevj. The spirit of WP:ONEEVENT applies; for example WP:NOTTEMPORARY basically says in part 'go ahead and delete an article that maybe seemed notable last year'. I have nothing against the album; if it were up to me the guidelines would allow an article on every single reviewed album. Why not work to change a policy? --→gab 24dot grab← 18:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for the stating the obvious there. I really don't have the time or inclination to battle with policy changes at the moment. Perhaps another time, in which case I'll drop you a note. If this article becomes deleted, so be it. And if policy is changed in its favour in the future, it can be undeleted then. From my (relatively shallow) experience at AfD, it seems that a similar arguments are cycled again and again because some policies are seen to be in conflict with each other. It can be rather a waste of what could be productive editing/researching/cleaning/vandal-fighting time, if you ask me! Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 20:50, 13 September 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.