Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy Gray (album)


 * 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. Daniel (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Lucy Gray (album)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Currently sourced with a non-RS review and a short blurb. Hardly the type of coverage to pass WP:NALBUM, and searches did not turn up nearly enough to pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Every review listed passes WP:A/S.RF23 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete clear fail of WP:NALBUM. Non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is absent. Polyamorph (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm sorry... reviews from Allmusic, Ultimate Guitar (Staff) Spin magazine , The Chicago Tribune , and a "Emeritus" (former staff) review from Sputnikmusic , plus discussion of it in this book about prog rock, and an appearance on the Billboard Heatseekers chart aren't reliable and non-trivial? (I mean, charts alone don't guarantee notability, but STILL, it can add to it). Additionally, it was named by an AMP music journalist as being one of their favorite albums of 2007 , and discussed in this NY Times (albeit via only two paragraphs) as being attributable to landing them on the Warped Tour. The Warped Tour! Definitely a significant part of the band's career. Additionally, several sources interviewing or talking about the band in general ask questions about the album in relation to their newer work or constantly bring up this album as one of their early works: see the results of  and . Yeah, pretty good case for keeping, though I still would hope for more coverage to motivate me to !vote for a strong Keep. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - simply blurb "reviews". Even the Chicago Tribune piece which is technically 5 paragraphs, if you realize that 4 of those paragraphs are single sentences.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sputnikmusic's review is five paragraphs, each with multiple sentences. The Spin review is one paragraph, but it packs quite a bit into that one paragraph, and it still remains that the review had this album as its main subject. AllMusic's review is one-paragraph, but not only are there like ten sentences in that, but the sentences are very lengthy and with a lot of analysis and opinion on the album's music there. The reviews aren't overly long, but not what I would call "blurb". Plus, the reviews still indicate secondary, HQ source interest in the subject. 👨x🐱 (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment per WP:NALBUM Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography. The fact that some sources exist, with arguments being made over how many sentences they contain, is not enough to justify a standalone article. Polyamorph (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is ample material already here for a standalone article. NemesisAT (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note the expansion was done after I commented here. Polyamorph (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't check the dates sorry. NemesisAT (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, has already been improved significantly since nomination. Now passes WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented by 👨x🐱. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP:HEY and should not have been nominated in the first place. Geschichte (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2021 (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.