Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Cocaine


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Free Cocaine

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Interestingly has 31 tracks in a 50 minute album. But fails WP:NALBUMS. No evidence that the release charted anywhere found at Allmusic or Billboard. No evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. Article references a one paragraph review and the bands own website as the only sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although I couldn't find significant coverage beyond the Allmusic review, I think keeping this is better for the project than deleting or redirecting it.--Michig (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? -- Boing!   said Zebedee  11:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it contains encyclopedic information. All of the Dwarves albums will have been reviewed in multiple music papers and magazines, most of which are not available online. Deleting this article will not improve the encyclopedia.--Michig (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Bacause it contains encyclopedic information" is saying precisely nothing, because that is the question we are trying to resolve here - similarly "Deleting this article will not improve the encyclopedia". What we need here is evidence of notability, and Wikpedia does not insist on online references, so if you can provide actual details of the reviews in "multiple music papers and magazines" that you say exist, that would be a great help -- Boing!   said Zebedee  19:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have the print reviews. The band is notable, the album has been reviewed in reliable sources. Deletion isn't going to help this project. Notability guidelines are there to provide a rule of thumb (and in this case they don't indicate that this should be deleted), but we should be able to think beyond them and give consideration to the best outcome for the project. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete simply fails WP:NALBUMS Alan  -  talk  18:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - An album does not have to reach the charts to be notable - those are two different discussions. Per WP:NALBUMS, an album can be considered notable if it appeared on a chart, but that does not automatically imply that an album is not notable because it did not appear on a chart. I also do not believe that an AllMusic review is non-significant just because it is short in length. Given the notability of the band, WP: ALBUMS allows the assumption that their albums are inherently notable. However, my vote here is "Weak Keep" because after some investigation it appears that this album is one of those quickie compilations tossed out by a record company without much cooperation from the band or notice from fans and collectors. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 20:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - As Doomsdayer points out, charting is not a requirement for album notability (it is not even part of the WP:NALBUMS criteria). This album has an allmusic review (whose significance I disagree with the nominator on) and apparently coverage in a book.  So it may meet notability.  But if not, a merge or redirect to Dwarves (band) would be more appropriate under WP:NALBUMS than deletion. Rlendog (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh....if I had listed "not charting" as the sole reason, I could understand why you two are making that an issue. But that wasn't the sole reason listed. I understand that you see the one paragraph pro-forma review as significant. I don't. We can disagree and that is what these discussions are for. Also, I offered to withdraw the nom if Michig wanted to redirect the article. He refused. So please let's not act like I came in here with one reason and refused to consider compromise. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The coverage of this album in the book listed as a source appears to be no more than inclusion in a list (at least as far as I can tell from the limited Google Books preview), so that does not seem like significant coverage. Which makes me lean towards redirect - I am not entirely convinced that it shouldn't be kept since the allmusic review does have some substance, even though it is pretty short, but I'd like to see some additional substantive coverage somewhere. Rlendog (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete doesn't meet WP:NALBUMS Dlabtot (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Album by notable band, reviewed by an independent reliable source. Hekerui (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we saw the one paragraph review. Where is the significant coverage? Or are we still trying to claim that a single paragraph on a website amounts to significant coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be condescending, I just gave my reason. The band is notable, which is a good argument to keep an album proper by them, and a compilation that shows their development and is intended to do just that fits in there. It has had a review that is sustantive and non-trivial and is mentioned in the book by Strong. I have not searched for more material for expansion but if this is what you want then make an effort. Hekerui (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't condscending. Yes, it is mentioned in a book.....in a list. That's all. It is on a list in a book of lists. That sounds pretty trivial. For an album that is allegedly notable, there seems to be a lack of signifcant coverage. And whether the single paragraph is "significant", the fact that there is only that kind of makes the notability questionable. Why wouldn't a redirect to the band be an option? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not what you proposed, and it can't be proposed using a deletion discussion. A redirect would also remove the valuable content of the page. Hekerui (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have to be the one to propose it. User:Rlendog did propose redirect. I said before that I'd withdraw the AfD if it was redirected. If it were merged and redirected, what would be lost? A track list? Because that's all this article really is....nothing more than a track list. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:NALBUMS.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Dwarves (band). - This is a compilation album with no significant coverage in mulitple reliable sources.  There is no reason for a standalone article.  Being an album from a notable band would be a stronger argument if it weren't just a compilation album. -- Whpq (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2010 (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.