Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Error (The Warning 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 no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Error (The Warning album)

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

Of all the coverage on this list, only four actually mention this album. There's coverage and charting for singles for the albums but they don't name this album or even mention that it's coming. Of the four remaining sources, Live Metal is probably a blog (release announcements and news have no bylines, reviews only ever have the same name), uDiscoverMusic is owned by UMG which also owns both record labels this was released by and shouldn't be used because of that conflict of interest, and the Review Geek and Prelude Press aren't notable publications. Only additional coverage I can find is from the Honey Pop, though perhaps more exists in Spanish-language sources. QuietHere (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Mexico. QuietHere (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I created the article so I will abstain from voting for now. But when the nominator mentioned sources that do not name the album specifically, he/she missed the point that several of this album's songs were previously released as singles or on an earlier EP called Mayday, and the sources that don't show the title Error via a brief word search generally do mention those previous releases. Also, per WP:BEFORE (Section D), if a nominator thinks that there may or may not be sources in a different language, then a recommendation to delete must be informed by evidence that they don't exist. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 23:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If those previously released singles/tracks from Mayday are getting coverage that doesn't mention this album then that doesn't confer notability onto this album.
 * When I say "perhaps more exists", what I mean is I looked in my usual spots in what I believe was a thorough BEFORE search, but that perhaps I'm not being served all possible results because of the difference in language and I encourage anyone else to double-check that in particular in their own searches. And that's not necessarily to say that I'm definitely missing out on Spanish sources, I just don't know whether I am or not. Best to be thorough.
 * Not a response to you Doomsdayer, just that I realise I forgot to say above that I support a redirect to The_Warning_(band) rather than outright deleting.
 * QuietHere (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary for e very single source in an article to prove that the subject is notable. Some can be used to verify background details. Anyway, I created this article shortly after the album was released and it had gotten some buzz, then that buzz didn't seem to get much further, though this just came in: . I can wait for someone to find reviews that may be out there, and if not we gotta do what we gotta do. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 02:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I see no harm in keeping this article, could help the band’s exposure Golden409bus (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So I don't think this specific type of argument is listed on Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions (or at least I can't find it) but it definitely should be. Wikipedia isn't here to bring exposure to non-notable subjects. If there isn't already coverage for the subject in question that would justify giving it its own article then we can't just have one anyway on the off-chance that a publication or two sees it and that's somehow what makes them decide they need to cover it. Even assuming that would ever happen (and if you think it will, I can't imagine why), it still goes against basic WP policy. Oh, and there is WP:NOHARM which at least covers the first half of your point, so there's that. QuietHere (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Additional points: Can significant coverage be attained from only one source? WP:WHYN talks about reliable sources so I'd expect wider coverage for this album to justify a standalone page. Secondly, addressing the point made by User:doomsdayer520 if a nominator thinks that there may or may not be sources in a different language, then a recommendation to delete must be informed by evidence that they don't exist. No. The AfD nomination is based on the article as it stands. The nominator has searched for additional sources, found one, but that also doesn't look particularly reliable. Anyone opposing the deletion has the opportunity to find better sources, add them to the article, point out the changes in this discussion and argue for a reassessment. Also, if one disagrees that the sources cited are unreliable, opposing evidence/arguments can be put forward. If convincing, opinion may change. Rupples (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 07:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Delete Weak keep - The only source that confers any notability is the album's placing in the Loudwire Top 50 for 2022 - assuming that publication is a reliable source. The album just about satisfies point 1 of WP:NALBUM but none of the others. How independent are The Prelude Press and ReviewGeek reviews? Likely promotional, so I don't think they help establish notability. So the question is, does the Loudwire Top 50 placing convey significant reliable, independent coverage? I don't think so. However, it would be apt to note the Loudwire achievement alongside the album on the band's Wikipedia article. Rupples (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NALBUM. The sources from Live Metal, BandedPR, Review Geek and Prelude Press are reliable and in-depth IMV. I'd also include Billboard charting and being talked about in the Loudwire list. The rest are either from primary sources or interviews or nothing about the album. SBKSPP (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've taken a look at the websites hosting the cited reviews. I don't see Prelude Press as a reliable, independent source. Other album reviews I've read there all tend to be written in the most positive flowery prose. I was unable to find a critical negative review. The site's contact page rather backs this up - Interested in working together? Want us to share your music? However, some Review Geek reviews include critical comments, so does seem more reliable and independent. For that reason, I'm changing my opinion as the article just about satisfies WP:NALBUM by having two reliable, independent sources. Rupples (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Final relist, I don't see strong opinions here for either Keeping or Deleting this article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, Prelude Press houses press releases and is not a reliable source. I don't see enough coverage to justify an article at this time. —VersaceSpace (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am continuing to abstain from voting, but will point out that when some sources in an article are appropriate, then the inappropriate ones can be removed as part of the regular editing process. Also, per WP:ATD the usual process for an album article is to redirect to the band, if the ultimate decision is non-notability. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 19:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.