Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11/12/13: Live in Melbourne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dennisthe2 (talk | contribs) at 08:00, 24 December 2019 (→‎11/12/13: Live in Melbourne). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

11/12/13: Live in Melbourne

11/12/13: Live in Melbourne (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)

This live album fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM, as a Google search failed to turn up signficant coverage in reliable sources. I couldn't find evidence that it won any awards or reached any national music charts. As neither musician has their own article, it cannot be merged or redirected. Citrivescence (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both musicians have their own articles. I'll put links on the page in question to both articles.

You're being all nice and everything while at the same time you're purpose is to undo a few hours of my hard work and you haven't given a good reason as to why. Why does it have to win an award to be worthy? I look around Wikipedia and see that this article is as well done as a lot, if not a vast lot, of other album articles. One of your fellow reviewers once told me that if I didn't like that fact, I should nominate some of those other articles for deletion. That's just silly. Why? Just because I might not want to read an article doesn't mean there aren't countless others that would appreciate it. To me, that sort of defeats the purpose of having an online encyclopedia. The problem with "notability" in regards to small independent record labels and albums is that you will never have the kind of press coverage for these small guys as for the big music machines. Somebody there at Wikipedia should recognize this as a problem for notability's sake and grade on a curve for these independent albums else the big machine and their money always wins at the end of the day. I think you walk a thin line between "notability" and "popularity" by not acknowledging this fact. I went looking for this album and found inaccurate data about it at a couple of different places which I'll not mention here, so I decided there might be other people interested in the facts, as I was. I have a copy of the album so I'm reasonably sure the information I posted is accurate. Deleting a perfectly good article and denying others that knowledge is akin to burning books in my opinion. So it didn't reach "Gold" status. The majority of albums don't, so big wup!

I'm going to post a couple more sources that I found online that should help this article, although I don't think that should have been necessary.HowlinMadMan (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(posting this in the user's notes as well) Hey, HowlinMadMan. I won't go into the why here as it's been extensively covered elsewhere on Wikipedia, but I recommend you check out our general notability guidelines and Music album notability guidelines. This latter link will be the most relevant. Do keep in mind, as well, that being here in Articles for Deletion (AfD for short) does not mean that it will be deleted, it means that Citrivescence is seeking consensus on whether it should be deleted - and likely feels that a) a speedy delete is inappropriate (which, in this case, it is), and proposed deletion is not the best bet (again, it is not the best bet). Even so, keep up the work and follow the guidelines - remember, in a worst case we can always create a draft for you. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I don't want to. The relevant guidelines are pretty cut and dry here, and this regrettably does not meet any one of those guidelines at this point in time. Moreover, the connection to the notable musicians does not connote the notability. If the author - or anybody, really - can get some more material that conveys notability, I will change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]