Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreamers of the Ghetto


 * 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈  07:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Dreamers of the Ghetto

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Band seems to lack notability and PROD was recently removed. Meatsgains (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: No significant coverage by serious RS; their albums only have some coverage and are barely notable. Only one source that has some reliability covers it significantly; the rest are one-paragraph coverage that covers the band because of their sole album. Esquivalience  t 00:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Author Keep Meets WP:MUSIC by having substantial coverage by several major music publications, including Pitchfork Media, The Onion AV Club, Pop Matters, and Slant Magazine. These are some of the biggest names in American music journalism. They were also covered by several major noncommercial radio stations, such as WXPN (Philadelphia), KCRW (Los Angeles), and National Public Radio. The article is already extensively referenced. Chubbles (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to Enemy/Lover. While NMUSIC#1 and #11 are possible, none of the other criteria are met and there's barely any coverage of the band. This is reflected in the second paragraph of the History section, which shows notability of the album, and which would help fill out Enemy/Lover nicely. No objection to a reasonable non-COATRACK quantity of the first paragraph of the History section being incorporated into that article for context/background.  undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  20:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it make more sense to merge the album article to the band page? I don't follow the logic that would make a full-length album notable rather than the band itself. Coverage of an album is coverage of a band; this is longstanding precedent in Wikipedia music coverage. Chubbles (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Notability (music) says "...Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline". I considered a merge in the other direction, however the risk of expanding into COATRACK would be higher (since you're hanging an album that appears notable off a band that appears otherwise non-notable. That said, if standard practice for notable album with otherwise non-notable artist isto merge to the artist, then NMUSIC should be updated to reflect that.  undefinedHydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)  11:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have trouble conjuring up situations in which that guideline makes much sense...I maintain that coverage of an artist's work is coverage of that artist, and that album reviews have, until this AfD, virtually unanimously been taken as legitimate coverage of bands. Chubbles (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I acknowledge the language quoted above that suggests keeping the album article instead, but I agree with Chubbles that album reviews can be accepted as coverage of the band, and I think that it's more consistent with reader expectations to organize this material under an article named after the band that covers the album rather than the other way around. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources, easily establishes notability. --Michig (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as the reviews seem to be enough. SwisterTwister   talk  07:30, 1 March 2016 (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.