Talk:California (The Electric Prunes album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Albums (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Interesting. I see I actually started this article [1].

Now it's been PRODed [2] There is no evidence that this is a notable product and the PROD challenged (not by me) [3] Notable long-established band, real album.

WP:NALBUMS reads in part That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Google [4] gave 150,000 ghits (your results may vary), but none of the first few give any awards or chart positions, although the reviews seem positive. The band is still touring successfully, so you'd expect the album to sell well.

The problem is, this album was sold only online as far as I can see. So it wouldn't hit the charts regardless of its success. An increasing number of important albums are in this position.

ISTM that the track listing, personel etc. of any album by The Electric Prunes is encyclopedic information, and I can't quite see where else to put it. Andrewa (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

An album is not automatically notable only because the band is notable.
That's certainly true as the guideline stands. I can only guess what User:Andy Dingley meant by his comment removing the PROD. But this band is sufficiently notable that even the most dismally performing album from them is likely, perhaps even certain, to be notable. I struggle with this; The principle that notability is not inherited is little understood and often misquoted IMO (did you realise that it redirects to an essay rather than a guideline, for example? I suspect many don't.) The children of notable people are not automatically notable either, but the article on Princess Josephine of Denmark, born 8 January 2011, was created on 13 April 2011 [5]. At that time she hadn't done anything notable except have extremely notable parents, and according to the article she still hasn't, but I'm a little surprised we didn't have an article even earlier. I suspect if Prince William, Duke of Cambridge has a child the article will follow within days or even hours. And I'm not convinced that's a bad thing. Such people are inherently encyclopedic.
So, where do we draw the line? Andrewa (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
If the album only is distributed in a sector which doesn't produce hit charts, then it is obviously impossible to find any chart indicating the popularity of the album. For example, you won't find any charts from the 18th century, but there are nevertheless articles about 18th century compositions. The main issue is to verify whether the album is discussed in multiple independent reliable sources. If you find about 150,000 hits on Google for this album, then it is very unlikely that the album isn't notable, so the reason for deletion seems moot. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, how many do you get? And where did you look for evidence before making the statement that there wasn't any? Andrewa (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)