Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiding Inside the Horrible Weather


 * 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hiding Inside the Horrible Weather

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is poorly sourced and lacking in evidence of notability. It contains no indication of charting, no commentary by music critics, no mention of awards, etc. It consists only of basic track listing information and release dates of music videos. Except for one paragraph of commentary on Allmusic, it cites only dead links that show no indication that they ever contained significant in-depth coverage before they were dead. Allmusic covers all music, not just notable music, and is generally not considered sufficient to establish notability. The article there is trivially brief. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep the current state of the article is not relevant to its notability. Allmusic is far more selective than Wikipedia and counts for notability, also the review is a very long paragraph that could have been subdivided. The other named review New Musical Express is also a reliable source, it isn't linked but AGF. Will look for other sources later Atlantic306 (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Allmusic is not really particularly selective, and that paragraph found there is not really very long or extensive. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Found another review at Sputnik Music here which is a reliable source and emiritus counts as a reliable review according to WikiProject Albums/Sources. The Allmusic review is over 300 words so is more than a standard paragraph. Atlantic306 (talk) 02:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Sputnik piece is certainly a substantial improvement over what has been in the article over the last decade. I suggest citing it in the article, and including some of what it says. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I now notice some apparent problems with that Sputnik source's reliability: 1) The review is published under an anonymous username ("Kiran"), about whom I have found no actual personal name or clear identification, 2) the Sputnikmusic.com site is down, which doesn't bode well for the idea that this is a reliable source, 3) Although I had very limited time to review it before it became a dead link, my impression is that the site is (at least primarily) a WP:User-generated content community blogging site and should not be considered reliable. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been decided by WikiProject Albums in the past that staff and emeritus reviews from Sputnikmusic are reliable sources - see WikiProject Albums/Sources. I'm not sure how and when this was decided, but emeritus reviews have always been accepted in other reviews in other articles. By the way, the site isn't down, it just takes a while to load up. Richard3120 (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to be wobbling up and down. I used http://isup.me to confirm it was down before saying that. I have since been able to get it to load sometimes. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 30.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 17:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: we have an AllMusic review and supposedly an NME review as well, but helpfully the issue and page number are stated so that should be easy to look up and verify. It also charted on the Billboard Heatseekers Albums chart . That ought to be enough to pass WP:NALBUM for now, and hope to find more information in due course. Richard3120 (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've now added some prose from the NME review. Richard3120 (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per the above sources, which have been incorporated into the article. I think there's enough material to satisfy WP:NALBUM.  gongshow  talk  02:10, 1 November 2017 (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.