Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhazmyne's Lullaby


 * 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. Everybody agrees there are some sources which review the album, but there is some disagreement whether they are reliable. A pretty typical AfD situation. Now, we have more people thinking they are reliable, but the overall participation is not that high, and this is why I am closing this AfD as no consensus defaulted to keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Jhazmyne's Lullaby

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I doubt the notability of this album. Wikicology (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  23:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 02:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable "sole studio album from Milwaukee metalcore band" released over a dozen years ago by defunct non-notable band. qualifies for listing on a personal blog, not in the encyclopedia. Cramyourspam (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and seriously consider WP:DELREV for Articles for deletion/7 Angels 7 Plagues. You'll note that this page, about an album, is sourced with reviews to Allmusic and Exclaim, the latter of which is international news coverage. The article for 7 Angels 7 Plagues, which was not on my watchlist, has unfortunately been deleted after an insufficiently researched deletion discussion. Neither that discussion nor this one made any note of the references already existing on this page, and the group's biography on Allmusic, which is extensive, notes that members of this group went on to play in Dead to Fall and, importantly, Misery Signals. . Another member went on to play in The Damned Things. . That substantiates the group's notability per WP:MUSIC bullets 1 and 6. Ten years on, the group is getting retrospective pieces in weeklies - see this from the Shepherd Express. If the band is notable, that seriously undercuts the claims that the album is non-notable. I would be happy to restore the band article with sourcing if some passing admin happens to see this and can userfy it; otherwise I suppose I'll have to go through the usual channels. Chubbles (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Comment please see User:Chubbles/7 Angels 7 Plagues, where I have taken a userfied copy of the deleted band article and outfitted it with corrections and referencing. I am working on moving this to mainspace, but the usual channels are taking a bit longer than I had hoped. Chubbles (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 22:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. However, 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. Wikicology (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This article already has references to demonstrate independent coverage. Furthermore, if the band is notable, then an appropriate course of action would be to merge the content into the parent article, not remove it from the site altogether. (Why this is not more common, nor more commonly recognized, baffles me.) Chubbles (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You can't be serious. I can't find any WP:RS on the article. However, noting is notable about the band. The band, Articles for deletion/7 Angels 7 Plagues failed WP:NBAND and was recently deleted per a consensus to delete, 10 days ago. If the band is notable, a merge with the band is appropriates. Meanwhile, If the deletion review can restore the deleted page of the band before a consensus is reached here, I will gladly nod to merge this page with it but for now i strongly incline to consider its deletion. Wikicology (talk) 09:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I addressed all of these concerns in my two comments supra. Chubbles (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - The album has received (favourable) reviews in what can be called reliable sources for this specific, non-mainstream, music genre: 1. HM (magazine) did a review as is mentioned here although no online version is available, 2. Sputnikmusic reviews them here, 3. Chronicles of Chaos (webzine) reviews them here, 4. Exclaim! has a review here, 5. Lambgoat 6. AllMusic, 7. HardTimes.ca , 8. Friction Magazine  . The album has also been mentioned as "a reference" for another band's album here at Metal Kaoz. - Takeaway (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not enough to merit a page on wikipedia. The album has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist or band. However, some of the works must contain information beyond a mere critical review of the recording. In other words, critical reviews in several publications are not enough in themselves to establish the need for a separate article. If all you have are reviews, quote them in the discography section of the artist's or work's article. Besides, the album has not won a number of major awards. Wikicology (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea where you got the part about that it needs more than a critical review. I don't see that mentioned anywhere on WP:MUSIC. Can you please point out the WP policy that states this assertion of yours concerning an album? Don't favourable reviews of an album in appropriate media actually make an album notable? Are you expecting academic research on subjects like this? Oh now I see, you got this from WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines. Well, this might be an older recording, and according to some a classic, but it's not really anywhere close to being classical music. As for your"besides", no awards need to have been won. It only needs to meet one of the criteria of WP:MUSIC if you actually read that page. - Takeaway (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gosh! Is a review all that is required by a music album to merit its own page on wikipedia? We are talking about the general notability criteria for notable music album. Does it matter if the album is a Rap, Blues, Gospel,Classic, Hip pop, Pop and any genre you can think of? If it matters then you need to point out the WP: Policy that differentiates these music and the relevant criteria for Pop, Rap, ''Blues' and so on'.  Wikicology (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I will see if I can relay your argument. WP:MUSIC states that if it meets WP:N, it is notable. On WP:GNG is mentioned that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." And yes, the album is mentioned not in just one review, but it is even mentioned favourably in several independent reviews. WP:GNG does not specify what type of coverage is needed. What you are arguing about is to suddenly include the additional notability guidelines used for assessing classical music recordings. If you read that page, you will see that there, at the top of the page, it mentions in bold letters "The WikiProject Classical music project follows these guidelines:...". I don't know why they have chosen to include these additional guidelines, but they are of no consequence whatsoever for the subject that we are discussing here. - Takeaway (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It does have a great consequence! Dogs are Dogs irrespective of their color. Let wait for other editors to comment. Wikicology (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why should policy that is specifically meant for other music be of any consequence here? How the classical music assessment page has been worded is absolutely clear. It has no bearing on this subject so why keep holding on to it? - Takeaway (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gosh! Why not? is WP:MUSORG applicable to only classic music? Wikicology (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Gosh, the manual of style doesn't specify its limit of application to a certain genre of music but what you are quoting (WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines) does. It's that easy. - Takeaway (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment for any creative work, critical reviews of the work are the most important sources for proving notability. The guidelines for classical music apply to a special case, works which have been frequently recorded, and the questions is whether a particular recording is important enough for a separate article. a recording of a classical music work is creative, but in a relatively limited sense as compared to the work itself The problem is that there are publications such as Fanfare which attempted to review every possible recording of all classical music--and the general rule would be that a reference must be in some way selective, and not a directory. ( The analogy is presumably to one of many editions of a book, where it will be a very rare specific edition that is individually notable.) Personally, I don't think the analogy holds very well, and I think we need to define critical in that guideline much more carefully. I suspect the proper  analogy here is to non-notable mere compilations of works by an artist that have been released in multiple ways--I think we almost never do not consider them notable. I doubt this recording is in that class, but it's not my field, as therefore I am not giving a specificc opinion.  DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment 7 Angels 7 Plagues has been restored. Chubbles (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Meets WP:NALBUMS, which says:

''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. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting.''

Independent sources are reviews. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2014 (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.