Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funland (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 keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Funland (album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NALBUM Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 09:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The album has references which include reviews that meet the first criteria of WP:NALBUM. Notfrompedro (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I will give a breakdown of my views on the sources provided:
 * 1. Discogs is not a WP:RS as it is user-generated
 * 2. Although it has significant coverage, I struggle to see reliability in the source. I have never heard of silive.com and it appears to be more of a blog area, but that is simply my observation
 * 3. Not a WP:RS as it reads very much like a blog post - first sentence is "Sorry, kids."
 * 4. Doesn't mention the album (after a skim read and a search for the term "Funland" - if it is mentioned, please say)
 * 5. Issues with reliability. See what the Spanish Wikipedia has to say: "Punknews.org is a website founded by Aubin Paul in 1999. The website publishes music news and album reviews relating to punk rock, hardcore punk, ska, alternative, indie rock, heavy metal and hip hop. It features user-submitted and editor-evaluated articles, through a publishing format much like popular technology-related news website Slashdot."
 * User-generated content is not a WP:RS. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 17:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Number two is Staten Island Advance which is a reliable source. The author of that article is the news manager for SILive.com. Number three is Fort Worth Weekly which is also reliable. Your personal view of the professionalism of the verbiage doesn't matter. It was authored by a member of the Fort Worth Music Hall of Fame  who has penned liner notes for numerous albums. Punknews.org is considered reliable on this wikipedia according to Wikiproject Albums. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "Your personal view of the professionalism of the verbiage doesn't matter". Would you like to explain why you think that my "personal views...[don't] matter"? Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 18:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because whether or not Willbb234 appreciates the writing style has nothing to do with whether or not something is a reliable source. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That isn't to say that my view "doesn't matter". Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 19:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I specifically said your view of the writing didn't matter. I didn't devalue you as a person. Please don't pretend I made insults I never made. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course you didn't devalue me as a person and I never said you did. You still devalued my view, however. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 19:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your view of the writing because it is irrelevant to the discussion. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you did devalue my view OF THE WRITING. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you think your personal view of the professionalism of the writing has anything to do with whether or not it is a WP:RS? It was that notion which I took issue with. Your personal view of the author's writing doesn't matter and isn't a criteria for claiming a reference isn't reliable. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So you think "Sorry, kids" is the first sentence of a reliable piece of writing? Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What I personally think of the style of writing has nothing to do with it meeting WP:RS. It doesn't matter what you think of the writing either. Hunter S. Thompson used earthy language but his journalism was still journalism. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Reviews from Metro Times and Spectrum Culture have been added which cement the fact that this meets the first criteria of WP:NALBUM. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think edits like this reek of bad faith. WP:RS says nothing about alternative newspaper's not being reliable. Willbb234 is deliberately removing valid sources in an attempt to have the article deleted. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It does, however, state that tabloids are to be avoided, which the article alternative newspaper says that they are very similar to. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 19:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Overlooking that you are using your own views to radically reinterpret the guidelines at WP:RS, "similar to" does not equal "is the same as". Alternative newspapers are reliable sources no matter how badly you want this article deleted. Actually, I just looked over WP:RS and I can find no mention of "tabloids" either. Where is this guideline? Notfrompedro (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are saying that I am "radically reinterpret[ing]" WP:RS, can you tell me where it says that alternative newspapers are reliable sources? Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 19:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NEWSORG. Unless it explicitly says alternative newspapers are not valid then there is no reason to suppose they are not valid. The guidelines say nothing about "tabloids" either which was the basis for you claiming alternative newspapers aren't valid. I have no idea why you have made it your personal mission to have this deleted but it appears that you have made this personal for some reason. Please just step back and stop making up guidelines and removing valid references. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you'll have to be more specific at WP:NEWSORG as I can't see the relevant information. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 19:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you what: show me specifically where WP:RS says anything at all about "tabloids" or "alternative newspapers" and I will. You don't get to make up guidelines and then dare me to disprove them. Here is a guideline WP:AFDLIST. You never notified me that this was even up for deletion I had to happen upon it. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

"*In general, tabloid newspapers, such as The Sun, Daily Mirror, the Daily Mail (see also the February 2017 RFC discussing its validity), equivalent television shows, should be used with caution, especially if they are making sensational claims. The Daily Express and Sunday Express should be treated with even greater caution." At WP:PUS. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 19:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:PUS is an essay not a guideline. It is also not WP:RS. Alternative newspapers are not the same thing as Daily Express. Quoting WP:PUS does not justify your removal of valid sources which you did by claiming a violation of WP:RS. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

At WP:DEPSOURCES, there are multiple tabloids which are in the edit filter. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 19:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:DEPSOURCES doesn't mention Metro Times which you claimed wasn't reliable. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * You asked me about tabloids and not the Metro Times. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No you claimed that Metro Times was an alternative weekly which somehow made it basically a tabloid and that tabloids aren't WP:RS. Not a single part of that is true but that was your argument. Show me any discussion on Wikipedia that says Metro Times isn't reliable. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just waiting for Davo to finish up writing the guidelines. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence of Tabloid journalism states "Tabloid journalism is a style of journalism that emphasizes sensational crime stories, gossip columns about celebrities and sports stars, extreme political views and opinions from one perspective, junk food news, and sun sign astrology." This is an indication of unreliablitity - it aims to bring in an audience by shocking them instead of telling completely the true story. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Those quotes have nothing to to with Alternative newspapers in general or Metro Times specifically. You are creating new guidelines. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll just ask Davo if he can write a guideline on every news website in every country of the world. Davo is up for it! Lets go Davo. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and while Davo is doing that, would you mind telling me where it says that Detroit Metro Times is a WP:RS, seeing as I have given you my explanation. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You desperately want this article deleted so you started removing valid references using made up criteria and when confronted you spent a half an hour scouring Wikipedia for something you might be able to use and all you could find was an essay but no guideline. You claimed Metro Times (which as the article notes is "the largest circulating weekly newspaper in the metro Detroit area") violated WP:RS which it doesn't. You claimed alternative newspapers are tabloids which violate WP:RS but WP:RS says nothing about tabloids or alternative newspapers being invalid. I don't have to disprove made up guidelines. You have to find real ones. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A lot of people buy it? Wow, it must be reliable! Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks to me to meet WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as this has been reviewed by multiple sources reliable enough for popular music, as currently cited in the article. feminist (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2019 (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.