Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Different for Girls: Women Artists and Female-Fronted Bands Cover Joe Jackson


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Consensus is sourcing does not meet depth for N:MUSIC. A redirect can be created as a matter of editorial discretion if desired. Star  Mississippi  16:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Different for Girls: Women Artists and Female-Fronted Bands Cover Joe Jackson

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

No evidence release is notable. Very little/no notable coverage. As far as I can tell, it didn't chart, get certified, etc or meet any criteria of WP:NALBUM DeputyBeagle (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: There's an AllMusic review, but that's all I could find. Doesn't appear to have a suitable redirect target, unless there's room for a tribute albums section of Joe Jackson discography. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 15:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with the previous voter. The album was fortunate to snag an AllMusic review, but even that accomplishes little more than a list of who's on it. Otherwise it went unnoticed by the press and public. Most of the contributing artists are themselves non-notable. No place to redirect because Jackson himself was uninvolved. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 15:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. In my view, at the very least a redirect (to a new section in the article about JJ (Joe Jackson (musician)#Legacy, for example) should be considered, anyway. I dPd the page and added sources including.
 * Trouser Press review that states:"Whether by accident or intent, Jackson has written a lot of his songs from a non-gender-specific viewpoint. This makes them remarkably open to interpretation, just as his melodic gifts make his work appeal to artists from a wide range of genres. (As of early 2010, Jackson’s songs have been covered by artists as diverse as Tori Amos, Anthrax, Buck-o-Nine, Goldfinger, Guttermouth, Mandy Moore and Sugar Ray.) The 14 female artists and female-fronted bands that perform on the 2004 tribute disc Different for Girls uncover layers of woman-sympathetic insight that many of Jackson’s fans may never have apprehended in his tunes. Elaine K underscores the loneliness and rejection implicit in “Is She Really Going Out with Him?” with a solo folk approach. Fabulous Disaster rocks out faithfully on “Got the Time”; Beth Thornley strips the same song down, singing the lyric over acoustic guitar and funky keyboard underpinnings, emphasizing the weariness that waits at the end of the busy day. Essra Mohawk recasts “Steppin’ Out” with a light, frisky ska rhythm; Whitney McCray performs “Breakin’ Us in Two” as a sad waltz. Maxine Young turns “It’s Different for Girls” into blissful dream-pop. Idle Mirth brings the guitar noise to “Another World” while turning the melody inside out; the result is something that My Bloody Valentine fans would admire. (“I stepped into another world,” indeed.) Alice Lee’s rendition of “Sea of Secrets” makes it sound like the best hit single Sheryl Crow never had. darkblueworld has the last word with its version of “Take It Like a Man,” alternating trip-hop verses with a guitar-heavy chorus. Track after track, Different for Girls shows that when it comes to writing songs with an unforced yet intuitive grasp of the feminine point of view, Joe Jackson is the man."
 * A brief presentation of what is the 1st tribute album to JJ indicates: "Mr. Jackson himself has said: "I LOVE the idea of an all-female tribute album! Let them know I can`t wait to hear it." Also noted there is the presence of "Joy Askew, whose album credits include Jackson`s "Big World," "Live 1980/86," "Blaze of Glory," "Laughter & Lust," and "Heaven & Hell."
 * And to which one can add indeed an All Music review stating: "Over the years, the lyrics of Joe Jackson's songs often appeared to be sung from a female point of view, the best example being "It's Different for Girls." So it's only fitting that an all-female tribute to Jackson was assembled in 2004, Different for Girls: Women Artists and Female-Fronted Bands Cover Joe Jackson. Now before you get all excited with thoughts of Fiona Apple, Chrissie Hynde, and Joni Mitchell covering Jackson classics, the 14 artists that appear on the album aren't exactly household names. As with most tribute albums, some of the artists stick close to the originals (Lisa Mychols' "Look Sharp!," Fabulous Disaster's "Got the Time," Fiona Lehn's "On Your Radio"), while others try new approaches (Elaine K's "Is She Really Going out with Him?," Idle Mirth's "Another World," Maxine Young's "It's Different for Girls"). Also included is an appearance by Mary Lee's Corvette ("Home Town"), who is a favorite of Jackson (and has opened shows for him on numerous occasions). Of course there's nothing like the classic original versions, but for longtime fans who are looking for something to spice up their extensive Jackson CD collections, Different for Girls: Women Artists and Female-Fronted Bands Cover Joe Jackson may just do the trick."
 * - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  21:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not sure any of that makes the album more notable as such. It's had a handful of reviews, sure, but it's not significant coverage.
 * Maybe the album is great, but it could be the greatest album ever and it really wouldn't matter, it's just not notable. DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I already voted above, but just wanted to concur that those sources mention the album and provide lists of who's on it, but don't really provide much insight with which to build an encyclopedic article. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 21:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

... I am sorry but I am really surprised by your comments and have to respectfully disagree with both of them. It's had a handful of reviews, sure, but it's not significant coverage. sounds a bit self-contradictory, doesn't it? It is significant according to what WP defines as such and the album (not great, according to the reviews, but that is not the point) seems therefore notable enough. And those sources mention the album and provide lists of who's on it, but don't really provide much insight with which to build an encyclopaedic article is in my view simply not true, at all. They don't only mention the album and who's on it!!!! That is exactly to avoid this kind of generic comments that I quoted them verbatim although they were inserted in the page....Thank you.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  00:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * A handful of reviews does not make it significant. Most any album out there has some reviews. Those were not from major publications, which is an important part of it being significant coverage.
 * Besides, an album should be notable beyond having reviews. It didn't chart, it hasn't been certified, it's barely even been mentioned anywhere.
 * It just simply isn't a notable album DeputyBeagle (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No. This is not true. An album does not need to appear in the charts to be considered notable on WP. Just read the guidelines, please. What it needs is significant coverage in reliable sources. You keep repeating the album is not notable and I understood such was your opinion. But saying it's barely even been mentioned anywhere is in contradiction with the existing sources I presented and even with what you say yourself when you claim that A handful of reviews does not make it significant, which is not the consensus here. A handful of reviews is considered significant on Wikipedia. I will leave it at that now, thank you, even if you reply one more time that "this album is not notable". I disagree, and explained why by presenting sources. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank)  01:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have read the criteria. It has to fulfil at least one of the criteria and it doesn't.
 * It should be the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works" - those works are trivial. They're reviews that, as Doomsdayer mentioned, mention that the album exists and who's on it and not much else.
 * I mentioned the charts and certs as a means of saying it doesn't meet the other criteria either.
 * Also, if you read the last paragraph in the notability guidelines it says "a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", which this doesn't fulfil DeputyBeagle (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2024 (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.