Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5 (Die Antwoord EP)


 * 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

5 (Die Antwoord EP)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No independent coverage, no evidence of notability. Even the band is of questionable notability. No reliable sourcing either. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  21:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Likely also candidate for speedy deletion under A9.   R mosler  | ●   22:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  13:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - no independent coverage? Coverage in Pitchfork asserts notability of this release and the band themselves --Kaini (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the second link you've provided is a just a google search of pitforkmedia pages which mention the EP. Independent coverage must exist in enough of a quantitiy to create a detailed page. This is explained at WP:NALBUMS. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  16:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * actually the second link i provided as a search of pitchfork pages which mention the band. regardless, here's coverage in the metro times, coverage by pitchfork as before, coverage by consequence of sound, here it is on itunes, and here it is in BPM magazine. i honestly don't see the notability problem here - the EP is on Interscope Records, an absolutely huge record label. --16:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're confident of notability why don't you use those sources to improve the article, then I'll re-look at the article when you're done and then if it passed WP:NALBUMS IMO, I will gladly retract this nomination. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  16:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep sources provided are reliable, but everything needs to overhauled regarding this band. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree as regards the overhaul, Theornamentalist. The main Die Antwoord article in particular could be much better. I have added some pitchfork references to the article, and should improve more over the next couple of days. --Kaini (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Die Antwoord and their releases are definitely notable, but I agree that their articles need a lot of work. Will see what I can do. -zorblek (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails notability per WP:NSONGS. Pitchfork states that only 5,000 copies of the album were released. There is a lack of significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notability, at this point, primarily relies on Pitchfork and reviews offered in blogs. This is not a reflection of significant coverage. Cindamuse (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Okay, here's coverage of the EP in Rolling Stone magazine, which i think really illustrates my feeling that this AfD and the other Die Antwoord one that's open at the moment are a waste of time which could be put to much better use by editors, including myself. --01:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * and here's a (very good, actuallly) Consequence of Sound review: . Personally I'm pretty sure the notability of this release has been established now. --02:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Consequence of Sound reference is considered an unreliable, self-published source as an online Wordpress zine/blog. Brief mentions, along with track listings, such as that included in the Rolling Stone are not significant, but may be appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article. See WP:IRS regarding identifying reliable sources. As a side note, make sure to sign your comments and posts with four tildes ~ . Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (the lack of sig seems to be a bug in wiki on the dev channel of chrome, my apologies) - i have to say i am baffled here. if i can briefly sum up why this release passes WP:N in my opinion: it's a release on Interscope Records, a large american record label. it's been covered in notable and verifiable sources such as Pitchfork Media, Rolling Stone, BoingBoing, and Consequence of Sound (Cindamuse, if you have a problem with the WP:RS or WP:N of Consequence of Sound, surely the place to take it is an AfD for the Consequence of Sound article - which seems pretty well-referenced to me at first glance). --Kaini (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Response, upon reflection: Cindamuse, you're asserting here that a review of the EP in that most venerable of music magazines, Rolling Stone - fails WP:N or WP:RS? --Kaini (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. A musical recording does not establish notability, based on the mere fact that it was released on a specific label. Notability of an album is not inherited from the label on which it was released. As blogs, neither BoingBoing nor Consequence of Sound are considered reliable. Pitchfork Media is not considered reliable as a zine. The Rolling Stone is notable, independent of the bands that they cover. Brief mentions or reviews, along with track listings are not considered significant coverage, regardless of the source. Regarding the notability of Consequence of Sound, the article contains no reliable links to establish notability. Regardless of this fact, you may want to review this link WP:OTHERSTUFF. The inclusion of one inappropriate article does not validate the inclusion of another. Cindamuse (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * well, regardless of anything else, i dispute that pitchfork is not reliable (and i suspect you would be in the minority amongst editors with that viewpoint). a significant portion of the album articles on wiki use pitchfork for references. --Kaini (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Pitchform is reliable, but Cindamuse's comments are otherwise correct. Indepedent coverage needs to go beyond confirming a track listing and title. It needs to speak of the background/production, recording, context, reception of an album/release etc. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  18:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (de-indent) - added another, quite extensive review from Insound --Kaini (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - see Kaini--Narayan (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kaini. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2010 (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.