Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duo (Richard Marx and Matt Scannell 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


 * Nominator Withdrawl - The article contains enough information to meet Wikipedia standards. Therefore, it should be kept. --Candy156sweet (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Duo (Richard Marx and Matt Scannell album)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete - I would like to open with the fact that Richard Marx and Matt Scannell (from the band Vertical Horizon) created this disc with little fanfare and sales promotion behind it.  It was not released on a major label and the sales were not RIAA certified gold or platinum.  This article does not meet WP:Music notability guidelines and has no possibility for expansion.  It doesn't meet the album criteria; the album only contains a track listing and a brief informational blurb at the top of the article.  There is little or no record of charted singles or publication coverage of any kind other than the artist's websites.  I've made an effort to try and find a way to expand this article, which proved futile.  After seeking information from the Help desk, I was advised that this article would be a viable candidate for this type of nomination. Candy156sweet (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Featured on CBS News The Early Show as cited in the article.  — Athaenara  ✉  04:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - If it were to be kept, there should be more to it than just a small piece on the CBS channel. I'm a fan of the disc and I do own it, but I really wish there were more of a way to expand the article to encompass more than what is presently listed.--Candy156sweet (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. There really is no reason for this page to be deleted. The CD mentioned is a rare occassion of two artists of completely different backgrounds joining to record an album. Plus, this CD will eventually become a rare collector's item (it already hasn't yet) and this article can help the casual reader learn a little bit about this album instead of just seeing a simple mention of the album with no explaination of any songs on the album or whatever. Definately a keeper. Itsmyright (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - As I mentioned in the previous reply to the editor above: I wish that the article had more information to expand on instead of a track listing and a simple blurb with a citation to a small online article. --Candy156sweet (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Additional comments by Athaenara:
 * The point of a Wikipedia AfD is to draw input, particularly from editors who haven't previously edited the article, on whether or not its inclusion is supported by this encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. An AfD nominator is simply one who lists it, not the gatekeeper of the process (n.b.:  "viable candidate for this type of nomination" means suitable for open discussion, not foredoomed to deletion).


 * Specific claims in the nomination, e.g. "little fanfare and sales promotion" (marketing strategy and tactics are irrelevant) "not released on a major label" (many notable albums aren't) "not RIAA certified gold or platinum" (ditto), beg the question, and "little or no ... publication coverage of any kind other than the artist's websites" is false: an article confirming that the album had been featured on national television in the US was published a month ago and easy to find.


 * I had never heard of the album or the artists before a dispute about whether or not to include the artists' album chronologies in Infobox Album was listed on Third opinion. I looked for independent reliable sources which verified notability as per Notability (music), found the CBS piece, which did, and added the reference with cite web format (diff). — Athaenara  ✉  07:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As the nominator did not notify article creator of this discussion as recommended in AfDM, I notified him myself with Adw (diff).  — Athaenara  ✉  07:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - This was a learning curve for me, and this experience will aid me with my future editing on Wikipedia. Thank you for bringing those issues to light.  My reasoning for beginning this AfD was an err on my part, although the catalyst came from a fourth party query pertaining to a question I had about the chronology.  The editor that advised me is a seasoned editor, but is not an administrator.  I would also like to add that Itsmyright talk and Jeremy706 talk are two usernames for the same creator and editor of the article in question.  As a "friendly ruse," the editor decided to change his username.  I happen to know this particular editor outside of the Wikipedia forum and we've come to mutual agreements about the subject matter in question.  This is not a dispute; this is merely an arbitrary debate about a subject that the two of us were at odds.  I would like to thank you for your third-party input and patience in this matter.  It is definitely appreciated.  I'm glad that there is resolution with this article.  I still think that article should be expanded, but I'm in agreement that the article should remain on the site.  --Candy156sweet (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alrighty then. Apparently the next step for you is to withdraw the nomination: "'Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page that you have edited heavily presents a conflict of interest and should be avoided. The sole exception is if you are closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well.'    (Deletion process) "  (And you're welcome :-)  — Athaenara  ✉  23:00, 27 September 2008 (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.