Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dariacore (album)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Dariacore (album)

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

Following up from Talk:Dariacore (album). As I said in that discussion, "few of the sources primarily focus on this album (e.g. That Pitchfork quote is a single line from a review of a different album), and those that do include Sputnikmusic which I'm still not convinced is actually reliable enough on its own to support notability that strongly." While there is promise in regards to an NMUSIC pass given the apparent notability of the Dariacore subgenre and this album's clearly very important role in establishing said genre, I don't think this album clears GNG with the present sourcing. There are good sources, but not many and not enough. I think a merge/redirect to Jane Remover would be most appropriate, but this is too great an edge case to go without a full discussion. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 01:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 01:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether additional sources are sufficient. Coincidentally, Sputnikmusic was just deleted earlier today. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Along with the comprehensive review by a Sputnikmusic staff member, it was considered one of the best albums of 2021 by The Fader (with the article also having significant coverage specifically about the album), and created a genre (source). In my view, this makes the album independently notable. I also believe it has enough content to be its own article. Skyshifter   talk  01:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. There are 2, independent, reliable sources on the subject with sig cov. (The Fader best list and Sputnikmusic). Due to this, I don't have confidence putting a full Keep. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 04:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment. This is an edge case. I'm not personally convinced that Sputnikmusic, which lacks editorial policies and has only some but not much USEBYOTHERS (i.e., Metacritic), is RS. However, the music Wikiproject considers it to be a RS per here. The review is full-length and SIGCOV, so I'm counting this as one source towards GNG/NALBUM even if it's not the strongest. The Fader includes it in a list of best albums, and is RS & independent, even though the coverage here at merely one paragraph is at best borderline SIGCOV. I am not convinced by other sources, which are non-SIGCOV or non-independent. Though, it is worth noting that one RS, Insider (which is usually WP:MREL but RSP notes it's reliable for culture) credited this towards contributing a subgenre, but to me the ref in question doesn't pass SIGCOV. Therefore, at best this is a weak passing of GNG/NALBUM, and I'm neutral regarding whether keep or merge is better, but I would oppose redirection or deletion.  VickKiang  (talk)  07:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I think VickKiang described it best. To me, when an article is borderline keep/delete, it's better to keep it. I believe the Sputnikmusic source counts for both SIGCOV and is an RS + The Fader mention is helpful as well. If the album was so well received (as described by The Fader), some other sources may pop up too, further strengthening this argument. Regardless, the album in its current state barely counts as notable to me, but it still counts! ULPS (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2023 (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.