Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/If It Were You, We'd Never Leave


 * 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) power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 05:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

If It Were You, We'd Never Leave

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

May not be notable due to the lack of significant coverage. This discussion might be relevant - Talk:If It Were You, We'd Never Leave. Several editors argued this album may not be notable despite the charts and sources such as Complex, Dancing Astronaut, In the Mix and Consequence of Sound. Brought here to clear the cloud. The editor  whose username is Z0 15:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC) - Edit: As nominator, I vote to Keep. There is significant coverage in reliable sources. The charts help pass the subject-specific guideline (WP:NMUSIC) and the coverage satisfies the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Merging isn't the best option since material from the album article wouldn't be suitable for the artist article. The editor  whose username is Z0 18:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - the combination of sourcing and charting is enough to meet the WP:GNG.
 * 1) Detailed article from Complex
 * 2) Dedicated review by Consequence of Sound
 * 3) Detailed article by Dancing Astronaut. (I'm not familiar with the website, but their About Us page looks like they're a legit company with owners, editorial staff, and dedicated writers at least.)
 * 4) He was interviewed about the album from Vibe.
 * 5) It charted in the top 20 of the Billboard Electonic albums chart.
 * Its by no means a slam dunk, but I think it's enough to scrape by and write a decent stub/start class article. Sergecross73   msg me  15:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to Andrew Bayer. Insufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources. Two album reviews (none by mainstream publications), one pre-release hype train article, and relatively little coverage in the Vibe interview (mere mention of the album in one of nine questions, and the question isn't even targeted at the album). Album was out since 2013 but merely charted in the United States on two rather insignificant component charts. The part where he talked about his sound and inspirations can be merged into the artist's primary article. Hayman30 (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ehhh I don't know about some of that spin. Consequence of Sound is one of the reviews, and that's a pretty mainstream publication, unless you consider topic of "music" to be "niche" (I sure hope not). Between its article at its its About Us page, you can see its a decade+ spanning music website, and is considered reliable per WP:RSMUSIC. To call the charting insignificant is a stretch too, considering the Electronic/Dance one falls on WP:GOODCHART/WP:USCHARTS as one of the primary/always applicable ones. Sergecross73   msg me  16:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong keep and close this bogus nomination. AFD is in desperate need of stricter restrictions towards editors nominating articles for deletion, and this is because this nomination is yet another example of notable topics having their articles removed for reasons that aren't correct. This album got full reviews in Consequence of Sound, The 405, Big Shot Magazine Echoes and Dust, The Untz, Junkee, and EDM Tunes, got an entire feature about making the album in Dancing Astronaut, landed on charts by Billboard, whose charts are the leading commercial statistic suppliers in the United States, an official UK Dance Album chart by the Official Charts Company, the leading UK charts provider, and also had its promotional materials, including singles and music videos, covered by reliable sources including Billboard if this search is any indication. Hayman30 is attempting to prove these type of arguments in this debate illegitimate by inaccurately describing the amount of notability depth of the sources I and other editors here have provided. He says the review links we provided weren't from "mainstream publications" (what does that even mean? the publications are still reliable, official and independent.), says the Dancing Astronaut feature doesn't make the album notable because it's a "pre-release hype train article" (this is just based on assumption and not on actual notability guidelines, and so what, it's still significat coverage of the album by a party not associated with the artist or his label), says the argument that the album landed on popular charts doesn't work because they're "insignificant component charts" (again, what is that suppose to prove, and how are they insignificant?!) and calls Bayer's statements about the album as nothing more than a "mere mention" (sure, it was only one answer to a question, but he still did a lot more than just mention the album's name in the answer). editorEهեইдအ😎 21:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, as it seems you probably didn’t read the link in the nom, the AFD nomination was recommended because there was a dispute over whether or not the “notability” concern tag belonged in the article. AFD is a legit way to settle such a dispute. But otherwise, yes, as you say, it is a notable subject. Sergecross73   msg me  23:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - The album is not close to being strongly notable, but that is not the Wikipedia requirement. There are a few reputable news sources that cover the album, and it charted on a nationally notable chart, which is sufficient to be adequately notable. Not all albums have to be successful on the main sales chart. Genre albums may not have cross-genre appeal. When I developed articles for Doors and Windows, it charted on the Bluegrass chart and not the did not even hit the sales chart.  So what, it was a bluegrass album, and it charted in its chosen genre, which is a success.  If It Were You, We'd Never Leave is an EDM-style album and has charted in the dance/electronic charts.  That means it hit its intended target. Wikipedia was never meant to only define and describe only the popular subjects. That is why they set up rules of what is considered notable, and the creator of the album article has done enough research to dig up enough proof to just clear the bar. Now another editor wants to raise the bar and ask the article to jump higher, but that is not the requirement for including a challenge label of possible failed notability. It would be incorrect to note that the article may not meet the notability guideline. Wikipedia has developed a quality scale to encourage articles to be improved, and that is the tool that I think Hayman30 should be wielding, not the purge/merge/keep sword.  Overall the article has barely enough notability to remain, and barely enough quality to be useful, more than a stub, but an actual starter article.  I recommend keeping the article. Mburrell (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, only reliable sources I could find are the ones stated by the nominee above and Serge, which isn't a large number. It could be used to expand the page, but only to a small degree. Still better than nothing. aNode   (discuss)  05:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, covered in multiple reliable sources and has notable chart positions. Passes WP:NALBUM, however could be expanded.  Lazz _R  12:12, 12 July 2018 (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.