Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fumble (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. There's no consensus about notability there. But as there is at least one valid redirect/merge target before any renomination consider using an alternative process to AfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Fumble (album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's only one citation in the article that is trivial and nothing really comes up in Google about it except that it had a reissue. Which isn't notable. The album didn't seem to chart or anything. So it doesn't meet WP:Notability (music). Wikipedia isn't a directory or place to store track listings.--Adamant1 11:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Added five refs. Band is notable as well, not only for Grohl, but for being a significant part of the DC music scene. Caro7200 (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, the refs you added don't establish notable because they are trivial coverage in none reliable sources. Also, while the might have been a significant part of the DC music scene (which is questionable), it has zero to do with the notability of the album. Per WP:Notability (music) "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." --Adamant1 (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Unreliable? I respectfully disagree:  Trouser Press, Washington Post, Exclaim, AllMusic, and books published by reliable publishers. Caro7200 (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The reliablity of the Washington Post as a source doesnt matter when the ref you provided from them isnt even about the album and only mentions it once in passing. It doesnt matter who writes an article or what news outlet its from if the article isnt about the subject of the AfD, obviously. As is the case with your references, Washington Post or whatever. I would call a source that's not about the subject of the AfD not reliable (as in not reliable to establish notability) in the general sense though. Adamant1 (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. The album fails WP:NALBUM and has not been discussed in reliable sources. It did not chart on any country's official music chart and was not critically reviewed.  Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 12:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, Trouser Press, AllMusic, and Exclaim are reliable sources. Caro7200 (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * AllMusic is reliable as a source of basic information. In this case its not reliable for establishing notability though because its coverage of the album is extremely trivial and not in-depth. Generally, the quality of the content matters more then what the source is. So it doesnt matter what the source is if the subject is just mentioned in passing. Which is the case here. Adamant1 (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * They may be reliable sources but they cannot be used to establish notability because they only mentioned the album in passing (as noted by Adamant1). Exclaim usually does album reviews; I'm surprised one of their contributors did not critically review this one.  Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 13:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll always advocate for reliably sourced stubs and short articles. There are six good refs, whether they discuss the album in passing or more in-depth.  It's by a punk band that started in DC in the 1980s, one of the most notable times in the city's music history.  It came out on Dischord, one of the most notable independent labels.  It features the most notable rock drummer of the past 30 years.  Would we dismiss articles on Ringo's pre-Beatles work?  ;) Caro7200 (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Added a Spin ref--also notable as perhaps Grohl's first recorded vocal on an album? Caro7200 (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The spin ref doesn't meet the whole "in-depth coverage" thing since it only mentions the album in four word paragraph and the rest of the article has nothing to do with it. You really need to read through WP:Notability (music) and WP:GNG so you have a better idea of what counts as trivial or not. As it gets really old having discussions like this one when people don't feel like doing the due diligence to find sources that actually meet notability standards. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, I've been editing on and off since 2006--I'm quite aware of them. We are talking about references for a short article/stub about a punk rock album from the early '90s.  I think this is a case of a difference of opinion about the value of Wikipedia's hundreds of thousands of short articles and stubs.  I assume you've been editing music articles for some time now.  You've seen what bad/not notable/poorly referenced ones look like.  This isn't one of them. Caro7200 (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's good. Then you know WP:Notability (music) says its better to merge album articles that are little more then a track listing, which describes this article, and that albums aren't except from WP:GNG standards. While I'm not a fan of perma stubs myself, and there lots in Wikipedia about how creating them isn't the point in the project, I'll usually give them a pass if they are at least encyclopedic and well sourced. That isn't the case here though. No where does Wikipedia say it's an encyclopedia of everything and even stubs should meet that standards. There's no reason articles about albums should get a special exception. Especially now that Wikidata exists for listing trivial, basic information like what is in the article. There's no reason the information in the article can't just be there at least merged into Scream's article if nothing else. It's important to have a good middle ground between including everything and indiscriminately deleting everything, and things shouldn't be done based on some arbitrary, relativistic standard like "let's keep it because I'm all for stubs." --Adamant1 (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But didn't you also nominate Scream for deletion? I still respectfully disagree, Adamant1, and I'm sure we both hope that more editors weigh in.  I think that often short music articles are treated unfairly because there have been so many truly terrible, not notable ones over the years. Caro7200 (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well yes, but it's like a WP:Matryoshka doll. This merges into WP:Scream (band), it merges into WP:Dave Grohl, and then we all go home knowing we did our part to improve Wikipedia a tiny tiny bit. At least that's the plan. We'll see how it goes I guess. I'm not really invested in any particular outcome with either article. Usually the chase is better then the catch. Especially with this and the fact that what people vote on and how they vote can often times be pretty sporadic. I have no illusions that any AfD is a sure thing, but we are still improved as a community and Wikipedia a little each time we go through it IMO, whatever the outcome is. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Do the sources added by User:Caro7200 convey notability?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 07:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Scream (band). There certainly is some coverage in what are very clearly reliable sources, but I don't think there's sufficient coverage or content for a standalone article, and this album can be summarised adequately in the band article. --Michig (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We also have to consider WP:NEXIST and WP:NPOSSIBLE. Additional information/sources may be found in Grohl/Foo Fighters bios; Nirvana bios; additional Washington Post stories; reliable D.C. alternative media stories; books and documentaries about the D.C. scene, such as Live at the Safari Club: A History of harDCcore Punk in the Nation's Capital 1988-1998; Dance of Days; Spoke: Images and Stories from the 1980s Washington, DC Punk Scene; Salad Days: A Decade Of Punk In Washington, DC (1980-90); other music journalism from the period, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Sources added by Caro7200 are reliable enough for the article to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you're thinking of arguing with me over my vote, don't bother responding at all. I'm not interested in looking for an argument in this AfD. So, I won't reply. I stand by my vote no matter what. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Might I ask how commenting by people on the delete/merge side is arguing? Everyone has a right to ask for things to clarified. Plus, it helps new/ingorant to the process users understand things better and maybe Id retract my AfD if there was a completely compelling reason to. Its rather dissmissive to discount all discussion as arguing to. I dont a bunch of useless back and forth off topic barnstorming either, but I dont see anyone here doing that and its a process, that sometimes takes discussion to resolve things. You should have the flexibilty to change your opinion in light of new evidence. I am. P.S. Feel free to ignore/discount this. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2020 (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.