Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Steel Read-A-Long


 * 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   redirect to Doctor_Steel. This has been open almost a month, relisted twice, and has gotten nontrivial attention from editors, so it deserves a close. The nom's Delete was based in "no independent sources" but then the nom later acknowledges independent sources were provided. The Keep !votes point to Wired and Coilhouse but acknowledge those sources do not provide significant coverage of the album itself, and also point to other poorly-sourced articles about albums but acknowledge the WP:OSE weakness of that argument. The Redirect argument is strong per the general agreement here that the sources found cover the controversy and not the album. 15:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Steel Read-A-Long

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Self-published CD by never-signed artist with no independent sources (discogs is a directory and not independent, of course). Zero evidence of significance. PROD disputed by a fan, so brought to AfD. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This album is notable in that it was actually at the center of the controversy in 2008 that had Dr. Steel fans and Joss Whedon fans clashing, and was reported on Wired, Coilhouse and other places. While not specifically mentioned by name in the articles themselves, it is mentioned by name in the comments attached to these articles and made clear from them that this was central to the controversy and key to understanding it. (It was also mentioned by Steel himself as the specific reason for the controversy in his MySpace blog, though MySpace has taken their blogs down.) --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 01:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It is also listed as an album of Steel's in an article on PlanetNews. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Doctor_Steel. The problem is, this controversy was relatively small when you get down to it. Other than that there really isn't any true coverage of the album as a whole or any reviews that I can find. The pertinent data about the whole Steel/Horrible thing is already logged on the main article for Dr. Steel, so there's really no need to keep an entire article for that purpose alone. We know it exists, but existing and receiving coverage for one event isn't enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, yes, but it was rather a big deal in the steampunk and whedonverse communities back then. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My big problem is that other than a handful of articles about the potential idea theft (which looks pretty damning TBH), there is zero coverage for the album. What's more is that Wired and Coilhouse talk about Whedon potentially taking the entire concept of Dr Steel rather than this particular album in specific. (The Wired source doesn't mention this album at all!) From what I can see the only thing specifically taken from this album would have been the title of the album. Everything else is about Dr. Steel as a whole rather than his actions on this album specifically. I'm not saying that this wasn't a huge deal and shouldn't be covered, just that this doesn't really focus in-depth on the album in specific. Considering that we have zero album reviews from reliable sources and zero coverage that focuses specifically on this album at length, it makes more sense to redirect this to the main article. The coverage here just isn't enough to show notability outside of Dr. Steel as a whole. If you can find me one review, one review in a reliable source then I'll change my vote. The problem is that it just isn't out there, although if anyone knows anyone in one of the major sites that review stuff like this (the horror sites such as Dread Central actually review stuff like this quite often) feel free to ask them to do you a solid and post a review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I'm surprised that someone hasn't reviewed this in a RS yet. The album is pretty good from the free clips I'm finding here and there on the Internet. I'll probably buy it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   17:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * keep When did Wheedon swap from being plucky little browncoat to evil Disney steamroller? The Dr Horrible article is enormous, because Wheedon and Fillion are big money and mags likes Forbes will take an interest. Although even there, many of the sources are to out-and-out fansites like Whedonesque.com, that raise all sorts of WP:RS red flags.
 * This album has nothing like that same level of money behind it or interest yet paid to it. Yet our barrier for notability in music is very low (please, don't quote OSE at me, I've read it already, but just look at the plethora of trivially minor rappers we're covering). This is an album by an artiste in a niche scene, yet it's sourced and it forms part of their discography. We are just not in the habit of deleting such articles.
 * As to the specific complaints in the nomination, then what do they mean? "Never-signed"? "Self-published"? This isn't the 1970s - music doesn't need an established label to get it published. Why would any small artiste choose to sign to a label any more? WP's hard line on self-publication is tied to use as WP:RS, not their inherent notability. Now I'm not claiming that Dr Steel is an entirely reliable source for his theories on child rearing and the appropriate place of domestic robots in the home, but that's not the issue here. As to "no independent sources", then WTF is Wired? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, so someone is finally adding independent sources? That's good. It remains a self-published record with no independnt significance, of course - the record itself is entirely incidental to the controversy. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a reference after the complaint had been brought up. A good 99% of albums listed in this wiki have no references, especially in niche genres, as the threshold for notability in music is very low as Mr. Dingley correctly pointed out. And an album's being self-published is completely irrelevant in this day and age, as Mr. Dingley also correctly pointed out. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The threshold is low, yes, but at the same time it still requires coverage that focuses specifically on the album. We don't have that here. The first two links are for Discogs, which looks to be a typical database type entry. The third link is to a primary source, which cannot show notability. The fourth link is to Coilhouse, which is predominantly about Dr. Steel as a whole. The album name is sort of briefly mentioned, but that's about it. When it comes to showing notability specifically for the album, this is pretty much trivial. Now the Wired source doesn't mention this album at all. It focuses solely on the idea that Whedon stole the concept of Dr. Steel, not that he specifically stole this specific album. The point is, none of the sources that could be usable as RS are ones that focus specifically on this album. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by Dr. Steel being a notable musician. At the end of the day the controversy is over the potential idea theft of the Dr. Steel concept as a whole, not the idea theft of this specific music album. WP:NALBUMS specifically states "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article.". We don't have enough here to show that this album has received any notice outside of Dr. Steel and the controversy that seems to focus specifically on the idea that Whedon idea thefted the concept of Dr. Steel as a whole- not this specific album. If other articles exists, then all that means is that they haven't been deleted yet. As much as I'd like to keep this, it doesn't pass notability guidelines for albums. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   17:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Doctor_Steel There's essentially nothing here that isn't already in the artist's article, and that seems unlikely to change. Mangoe (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2013 (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.