Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Lopez: Let's Get Loud

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. Consensus appears to be that the RIAA gold status and mentions by the sources provided by Michael Q. Schmidt satisfy the notability guidelines. 28bytes (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lopez: Let's Get Loud

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

Delete - Non-notable concert film release. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE due to lack of coverage from verifiable or reliable independent sources. SplashScreen (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the topic meets both WP:GNG and WP:NF. Why would th nom believe that a DVDd of two of J-Lo's live concerts woud not get any coverage? Rather than just a concert film release, this was J- Lo's second DVD... and yes, it received the requisite coverage and commentary to meet WP:NF. The nom erred to say "lack of coverage from verifiable or reliable independent sources," as WP:BEFORE shows sources exist. Perhaps his concern was that the article did not itself contain the available sources. I remind him of WP:IMPERFECT and WP:WIP and more importantly, WP:NRVE. Topic notability is dependent on sources BEING aavilable, not their use or not within an article on that topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're voting to keep the article because the AfD process says that sources need to exist, not because there are actual reliable, verifiable, third-party sources that comment on this release. If that is the case - where are they? SplashScreen (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in your other J-Lo nomination, my keep is based upon my own before, and not yours. Before opining, I thought to myself "Is it possible that the second DVD ever from J-Lo would not have received any coverage??" And so I took a quick look and found enough to have me look further. Among the results, I found its title track spoken of in New Straits Times and the DVD itelf spoken of in Vagalume Daily Press Allstarz Detikcom and 4Hoteliers among others, and at Allmusic and Billboard and Hollywood Reporter. These took only a few moments and guided my opinion. When a nominator claims that independent secondary sources do not exist when in fact sources do, it suggests a lack of proper WP:BEFORE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt. I will add some additional content in the article. Additionally, the video was certified Gold by the RIAA. Statυs (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per the numerous sources provided above, this topic meets WP:GNG. Till 05:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on MichaelQ's listed sources and Status's improvements. The Steve 06:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just expanded Jennifer Lopez: Feelin' So Good (an article also nominated by Splash for the same reasons) 5x [1]. I will do the same with this article tomorrow. Statυs (talk) 08:54, 3 July 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.