Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of albums awarded Best New Music by Pitchfork Media


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

List of albums awarded Best New Music by Pitchfork Media

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no signficant coverage by third-party sources of this topic (these few paragraphs by The L Magazine appear to be it, and this article is made up of nothing else but 549 citations to Pitchfork Media reviews) Dan56 (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst✈discuss 06:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. sst✈discuss 06:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  → Call me  Razr   Nation  01:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Pitchfork Media is a notable source on music journalism and reviews, unnecessary to ask for further sources. Dimadick (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. While Pitchfork itself is notable, WP:NOTINHERIT applies here. This isn't notable outside of the publication.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hmm, this is a tough one. While I do see the arguments on why there might be notability concerns with this article, I'm not so certain deleting the article would be the best option either, mainly for the reason that this is a list we're talking about here. If we're going to delete this article by reasoning of the nominator, it would have to mean similar lists like List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s would have to be removed also for reasoning because they have no citations of sources from outside the primary publication. Not trying to make a Keep argument here either, but I'm just saying. 和DITOR  E tails 17:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , instances of a song going number one in the U.S. are often covered (or at the very least mentioned) by sources other than Billboard . What third-party sources ever even mention this article's topic?? Dan56 (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Number-one singles on Billboard haven't been really mainly "covered" in reliable sources as much as they've been mentioned about, but this google books search and the L Magazine should be proof of the similar nobility between these two topics anyway. Again, I'm just saying. 和DITOR E tails 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Another thing - If we happen to decide we keep this article, we should seperate this lists in subsequent lists for each year, as the more-than-500 citations on this list would probably be too much for one article to handled. 和DITOR  E ]}[[User:EditorE/Details|tails 00:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * So don't "keep" that article either lol. This deletion discussion is for this article (WP:OTHERSTUFF). Dan56 (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete To be considered significant coverage in reliable sources, it really needs coverage outside of just Pitchfork Media. If the Pitchfork list is being mentioned elsewhere, then the list concept is notable; if not, no. As mentioned above, the notability of Pitchfork doesn't just get inherited. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree that Pitchfork Media needs no introduction, but I also agree with Dan – because it's just embarrassing to see all but one of the list's 550 references sourced from Pitchfork itself. (Is there really no one except for L Mag who's commented on the Pitchfork list?) The thing that changed my initial "Delete" to "Comment" here was following the Category:Lists of albums link and seeing NME Album of the Year. That was/is a highly prestigious awards list, which I can't see us wanting to lose, but all the results there are sourced to the NME – what do we do about that? JG66 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The references I put there are really just to provide links to the Pitchfork reviews in question. If people agree I can just change them to be external links instead of references as I have already done here. AssortedLiquorice (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Here is a study which proves the influence the "Best New Music" tag can have on an album's popularity. Just because you can't find third-party sources doesn't mean they aren't there ;) Also many sources which state the influence of Pitchfork's high scores in the Pitchfork Media article don't mention the BNM tag, but most high scores are awarded with this tag anyway so there isn't a need for sources which specifically mention the influence of BNM. AssortedLiquorice (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , that is a Brown University student's research paper for an economics class, not a published, reliable source. Double check your sources and read WP:THIRDPARTY: "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (emphasis added ;) Dan56 (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say, Dan, but last I checked, I saw a policy article that said academic journals were applicable as reliable sources. ;v) edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 00:38, 17 January 2016 (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.