Talk:Gay Dog Food

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gay Dog Food. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141215052434/http://www.now.uz/music/story.cfm?content=200244 to http://www.now.uz/music/story.cfm?content=200244

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Notability dispute
I feel like after researching this article, I'm unsure of musical reviews being so focal in establishing an article's notability, especially when I have about 10 notable sources, which are extensive enough/not too repetitive to establish things such as credits, or background, but only critical reception and composition. I'm a fan of Mykki so I don't want to come off as ill-intentioned and not having good faith when telling these anon editors that notability for the article has not been established. So, some articles that COULD expand the article, should it be decided that this article is notable enough:

Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, Source 4, Source 5, Source 6, Source 7, Source 8, Source 9, Source 10.

If not, I suggest this be merged to the artist's page in a paragraph or two, because I am working on other articles, and didn't create this one. -- Aleccat  01:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Having been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it", the subject meets WP:NALBUMS criterion #1 and is notable. As per Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 19, it should not be deleted nor merged. 153.228.131.203 (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been through a lot of this bullshit where my articles have been deleted for notability reasons that should be obvious to the nominator that they're false. This fucking bullshit needs top stop editorEهեইдအ😎 04:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

For resolution then, since none of you are giving any, would you expand upon the article? If not, I do have to pursue resolution with help from a third party. -- Aleccat  15:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't have to expand the article just to indicate a subject a notable. if we link you to reliable source significantly covering the subject, that should be your evidence and you should leave it that. There's no good reason we should be discussing the notability of this topic editorEهեইдအ😎 22:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

When it has two sentences?  Aleccat  22:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * YES! If there's at least a lead with several citations shown, then you should let the article expand instead of deleting it! An article's length is not an indicator of notability. What you're trying to say is pure WP:TOOLITTLE nonsense editorEهեইдအ😎 19:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

All of the stuff in the infobox isn't sourced, that must be me saying 'pure WP:TOOLITTLE'. -- Aleccat  00:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not at all what I suggested. You were arguing that the short length of the article ("When it has two sentences?") was automatically an indicator of the subject's notability. That's a WP:TOOLITTLE argument and not how at all notability and Wikipedia works. If there's multiple reliable articles from indepdent publications significantly covering the subject, it's notable, end of story. This article should and well be kept editorEهեইдအ😎 17:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't my entire argument though, and you're misconstruing one sentence to represent my case here.  Aleccat  14:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)