Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/...In Pains


 * 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The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator).  Melsaran  (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

...In Pains

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Album does not appear to be the subject of any significant independent coverage, and article is essentially a track list. Under those cirucmstances, WP:MUSIC, while vague, suggests that the album may be non-notable. MastCell Talk 22:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep If the band is notable enough to be on Wikipedia (they must be, they are here and you didn't AFD them) then their released albums are notable. MANY bands have albums listed here with no more info than just the tracks, so this is consistant.  Yes, not ideal, but the norm.  Pharmboy 22:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:MUSIC; if the band is notable, then generally their albums are notable. A look at Cadaver (band) suggests that they meet at least one criterion of WP:MUSIC, so the album stays. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 23:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: My impression (in response to this and the above comment) is that notability of a band does not make all of their albums automatically notable. The WP:MUSIC guideline is a bit vague about albums, but it would seem that (in keeping with other notability guidelines) there needs to be some sort of independent secondary-source coverage for an album to warrant its own article. Track-list articles (of which this is one) seem to be deletion material. Correct me if I'm wrong - I don't work on this area much. MastCell Talk 02:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment My claim that if the band is notable, then the album is, is a matter of experience rather than policy. I agree that 3rd party verification should be on any article but I have found myself being a bit less of a hard ass on these points simply because WP:RS is hard to apply in a strict sense to any of the arts.  ie: it seems practical to cut some slack on a single album if the band itself is notable as what makes a single album notable is much harder to define, whereas what makes a BAND notable is easier to determine.  Again, not policy, per se, but my own pragmatic compromise here.  Most albums from lesser known bands (but notable per policy) don't have coverage from media that meets RS strickly anyway.  If we get really strict on WP:RS, most of the album entries would disappear on wikipedia.  Pharmboy 00:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess my question, then, is how we can build an encyclopedic article (i.e. something beyond a dressed-up track list) if the album has no outside coverage to speak of. Even if there were some evidence that it had charted somewhere, or there was some story behind it that was relevant to the band's career, that might be one thing. But here I'm just not seeing anything to expand the article or encyclopedize it with. MastCell Talk 01:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As someone who works on articles about obscure metal bands, I can assure you it is important that we have these articles. However, in response to the specific point about sources/significance- there is a review of the album here, another here, and is described as significant in terms of genre here- "It [referring to a different album] is a great slab of death metal, a modern classic maintaining the heritage from the heydays of Norwegian old school death metal, where albums such as Darkthrone's 'Soulside Journey' and Cadaver's 'In Pains' saw the darkness of daytime." Other mentions include a short review here and constant references to this album being one of the few by the band. J Milburn 13:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment/Question I agree with the nominator that the key issue seems to be coverage in third-party sources ("Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage" - WP:MUSIC). Does anyone know of such sources? Jakew 23:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions.   -- the wub  "?!"  14:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep No different than many of our other album articles Mbisanz 02:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was the one who contested the prod. A studio album by a notable band, released by a notable record label. J Milburn 00:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's fine, with the sources and context you've provided above, the article probably passes WP:MUSIC and this AfD can probably be closed. I know you're busy like all of us, but if you have a chance to include those refs and context in the article so that it's more than just a track list, that would be very helpful. Thanks for looking into it. MastCell Talk 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.