Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Layourbattleaxedown


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Layourbattleaxedown

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NALBUM. 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. The existing article lists one Pitchfork review of a single cut, but does not reference the album review here. There are also reviews by Jon Dale at Dusted Magazine here, one by Eric Bodrero at antiMusic here, and one by Ross McGowan at Stylus Magazine here. But that is not significant coverage. As usual there are references in fansites, blogs, forums, and other media that are not themselves reliable. I have made no determination about whether the reviews I found (listed above) are reliable sources or not, since the coverage does not appear to be out there. Maybe someone else can find some mainstream music coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  16:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - I'm seeing some reviews (dusted, stylus, tuning fork), but none of them are particularly great and I'm not quite seeing enough to satisfy NALBUM. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (warn)  @ 22:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep: Per the AllMusic and Stylus reviews, both proven to be reliable review sources at WP: ALBUMS/SOURCES. Both reviews cover the album in detail. Kokoro20 (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Kokoro20.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per reliable source coverage identified above. --Michig (talk) 09:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I've never seen AllMusic used as an indicator of notability in the past. WP: ALBUMS/SOURCES does not claim that being covered in those sources implies notability, only that they might be useful in article expansion. I've always seen it the same way I see IMDb for movies. Is it indeed consensus that AM coverage confers notability?  03:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Since AllMusic and Stylus are both reliable third-party sources, I don't see why it couldn't be. These sources aren't affiliated with the subject, which satisfies WP:GNG. Kokoro20 (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We routinely delete articles which only have local coverage, even those sources are reliable and third-party. I guess my question is, "Is it enough?" I don't think it is here. Two GNG-satisfying sources is really weak and using that to claim notability seemingly abuses the trailing "s" in "sources". I'm leaning delete here.  04:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "local coverage"? I don't see how they are "really weak" either, since GNG requires multiple sources of significant coverage to be notable, and two is multiple. Kokoro20 (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean subjects which aren't notable outside a city or small region and are only covered by local news sources; I was illustrating a point. Regardless, GNG requires multiple sources of significant coverage to be notable, and two is multiple is a really Wikilawyer-ish way to go about a deletion discussion; I know "two is multiple", thank you very much. It isn't a lot though. Articles with more than two equally valid sources are deleted regularly. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. The references given don't come close to constituting significant coverage.  06:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Two detailed reviews sounds like significant coverage to me (after all, it's they are more than just trivial mentions). But suit yourself. I'm not really trying to get you to change your vote. I just disagree. Kokoro20 (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2015 (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.