Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackbird Sessions


 * 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. The consensus seems borderline. Nonetheless, anyone is free to improve the article's sourcing with some of the sources indicated in this discussion. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 07:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Blackbird Sessions

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Was redirected after a PROD was contested, which I view as essentially a "soft deletion" (not sure how that term is officially used). Today the redirection was reverted, which I interpret as an objection of the original soft PROD, hence it's not uncontroversial anymore... but no improvements to the sourcing were made. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. No effective sources. The refs are social media links with no secondary sourcing. The album is just live recordings of cover songs and has no original content. Fails WP:SIGCOV.    scope_creep Talk  22:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The ep charted on the US Billboard 200 and US Top Country Albums (Billboard) unclear how these are not enough added another source 199.87.14.15 (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Girl on the Coast" is an original song from Decker's previous EP Gold 199.87.14.15 (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * There seems to be plenty of links besides the social media links 2 from billboard since this EP charted wouldn't that be enough??? also looks like the youtube links are just for the history of all the live versions she did before deciding to release this EP. Princessfourever (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we stop trying to delete this page and put a block on it getting deleted? On 5 November 2017 we had this posted to restore the page
 * the album charted on two national charts thereby passing WP:NALBUM Princessfourever (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep: Present coverage from MusicRow and The Country Daily + NewCountry.nl and Taste of Country earns a SIGCOV pass (though The Country Note explicitly calls itself a press release so ignore that), plus the charting that Princessfourever mentioned should not be ignored. I assume scope_creep's "no secondary sourcing" comes from before new sources were added, but "no original content" is not a valid argument against notability and just sounds silly. QuietHere (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources mentioned and presented by QuietHere. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Keep - Keep this sufficiently sourced article. If it cannot be kept, it should be merged to Jessie Decker, to maintain the history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * comment any reviews of the album in decent sources? That would help here too. Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak Keep to Neutral. I echo 's comment that I'm afraid I have to disagree that the two refs (three were provided, but I'm excluding the one labelled as a press release) are all WP:SIGCOV. The second one has some decent critical commentary and is plausibly significant coverage, however, the first one is IMO a short routine announcement of just 132 words that falls under: Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources under WP:GNG, and does not meet 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. Of course, this is my opinion and 's analysis is well explained as well, so thanks for your explanation! Further, my WP:BEFORE sadly didn't find many reviews except this, which is interview-format with mainly quotes. However, I'm still voting weak keep as it probably meets WP:NALBUM's criteria that The recording has appeared on any country's national music chart as it's on the Billboard top 200 at 175, not the highest rank but still meets WP:CHART. Many thanks!  VickKiang  (talk)  07:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The consensus the NSPORTS RFC is that must real secondary sources to verify it is notable. Not database generated sources that on this. The consensus is clear. The routine annoucements, the database generated profiles and youtube arent coverage. That is the consensus now.   scope_creep Talk  23:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see that as the consensus of this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 26 October 2022 (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.