- The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This article was resolved as "speedy keep" by an administrator who called it a "notable album by notable band", yet its notability was never explicitly established/explained in the AfD. It falls under none of the official guidelines, assuming they are official given that they are not being treated as such. "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." LF (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close - the original AfD, started by the same editor closed as "keep" in mid November. As mentioned in the current AfD, This was kept at the first AfD just 3 months ago, for valid reasons, and no reason has been articulated to change that result.. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There were no valid reasons. LF (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way were they invalid? "There were no valid reasons" is not an argument. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Three months ago you nominated this article for deletion and were answered with a unanimous "keep". Now you've nominated it again and got a unanimous "keep", but you're unhappy because Drmies only waited three days instead of seven days to close it. You feel that it isn't notable despite the six references cited in the article, but you've never said which five of the references are unreliable or why. In the circumstances, I don't understand how you think a deletion review is going to help? Would you please fully and clearly explain the reason why you think this album is not notable?—S Marshall T/C 13:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a notable album (as the references indicate) by a notable band. Here's just one more example of "nominate until you get the desired result"--I'm sure there's an acronym for it. LF, you could of course nominate it again and see what happens. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The acronym is WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. :-) But I was hoping to generate a discussion about the sources, which seems a bit more productive than repeating assertions we've already made. I think it might help to examine the article in the light of the GNG so that LF can see why this material isn't getting deleted when he nominates it.—S Marshall T/C 16:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with S Marshall; in the absence of some source analysis from the nominator, bald assertions of non-notability aren't very persuasive in light of two unanimously kept AfDs initiated within months of each other. 28bytes (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD was properly closed, and the album is clearly notable enough for an article. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close per S Marshall and MikeW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Amend close to Snow keep, not speedy. Please keep speedies restricted to the SK criteria. This was a poor Snow as it provoked a complaint. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with SNOW vs. Speedy, I think that for a SNOW objection to be valid, someone other than the original nominator would have to differ with the outcome. We can AGF that a nominator may succumb to wishful thinking, and say "I object!" without any real evidence that the outcome of the SNOW'ed discussion would have been any different. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close - Nomination did not provide a valid rationale for deletion, let alone a new one. The original rationale, that the article was previously deleted, turned out to be erroneous. The revised rationale, that "this double album has never been established as notable for inclusion on Wikipedia," was inconsistent with the result of the first AfD, which did have consensus that the article was notable for inclusion, and no reason was given to suggest that consensus may have changed in the 3 months since the original AfD. Rlendog (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which reference is supposed to be notable then, guys? The one to the band's own website? The one to Google Books which has no visible mention of the album? The one to an archive website featuring an interview done in 1997, seven years before the album was released? Or the reference to a non-notable website in French? LF (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you mean "which reference is supposed to be reliable"? Under the general notability guideline, it talks about using reliable sources, not "notable" ones. Being the creator of this article, I have removed the "Google Books" reference as it no longer links to actual page picture shots (where one could see information on the album being discussed) that were used in citing from the book, International Who's Who in Popular Music 2007. As previously mentioned, the reference use to link to page picture shots, discussing the album in question, when I initially did research for the article back in November of 2011. I never actually used any direct quotes or info from said reference, it was used solely for a more updated/contemporary source as regarding information on the album/article. As for the Addicted to Noise reference (archived website), that citation was used in the context of discussing the origins and history of The Black Album. That is the reason the interview is from 1997. That was one year after the original, 1996 demo was made. I understand that the refernce to "DandyWarhols.com" is self-serving to the band/album, that is why the other references were added. I feel that the "Discogs" and "SlabTown.net" references, while dated, are reliable secondary sources. As for the "FroggyDelight.com" reference... Yes, it is in French and also dated, but as one can see under the "Sources" section of the GNG: "Sources [...] are not required to be in English" and also under the "Reliable" section of the same guideline: "Sources may encompass published works [...] in any language. This is why I feel that the latter also falls under reliable secondary sources. I realize that I may be shooting myself (and the article) in the foot with the following statement and I'm fine with that: I understand that this album does not have updated/contemporary references. Again, that was the reason for the "Google Books", but that link is no longer in a working capacity to reference this article. Perhaps, I could just add the book itself as a viable reference with page numbers and publisher included. As I previously mentioned to Lachlanusername/LF in the "Apology" section of the discussion page for the 2nd nomination AfD: "LF, you asked me how this album is notable, maybe it's not. If you really think about it, notability is completely subjective anyways. I understand that Wikipedia has its "guidelines" on such matters though [And I understand and respect said guidelines]. I just thought I'd make an article about this double album. I'm only marginally a fan of the band. I do own this album, but it's not on heavy rotation for me. Feel free to use this information however you'd like to." However, on a more personal note and for the record, I do still think that LF renominating the article for deletion twice within three months and under two different user names (same account, but two different names none the less) was a dirty, rotten, low thing to do. I feel that LF is being disruptive to Wikipedia and is guilty of the aforementioned WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. P.S. I've added some more references for your viewing pleasure. Neuroticguru (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not notable. By the way, I have avoided referencing your accusation that I have actually changed my account name in order to support the deletion of an article due to the sheer lunacy of such an accusation until now, as I am now finding it quite annoying, so please stop, as I feel now you're just embarrassing yourself now by continuing to make reference to it. Totally ridiculous that this page is still under discussion given it violates this website's own policies, but whatever, what more can I do. LF (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say that the accusation is "sheer lunacy" and I don't feel that I'm "just embarrassing" myself either. Trust me, I've done a lot more embarrassing things than this. I never said that you changed your user name for the sole purpose of nominating this article for deletion a second time. However, the truth is that you did renominate said article twice within a three month span and you did so with two different user names and I find that to be quite annoying. That's my point. So, take that however you want to take that. I feel that your continued actions are sheer lunacy and that you're just embarrassing yourself by acting like a whiny brat. So, put that in your pipe and smoke it. That's what more you can do! Neuroticguru (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
