Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maverick (Meg 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Maverick (Meg album)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No references or qualify under WP:NMUSIC  Jay Jay Talk to me 02:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: Even if some of the singles are deleted at AfD, there's no reason to also delete the charting albums and/or use them as the redirect target for the single information.--Milowent • hasspoken  16:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence that album has notability independent of its creator, no verifiable information worth merging. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 11:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sourcing or in-depth coverage demonstrating sufficient notability to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It reached #20 on the Japanese charts.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NALBUMS says: 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.
 * This article has no sourcing at all, and so fails the notability criteria. --DAJF (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But why aren't you finding the sources? Get Rosetta Stone and start working.  Its easy to destroy content by noting an article has no sourcing.  We have thousands of extremely notable subject articles with no sourcing.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. I note on your userpage that you do know Japanese.  I do not.  Meg is clearly notable, I'd like to have a consistent organizational scheme for her coverage on English Wikipedia.  I'd do this by redirecting all the articles on her "singles" to the relevant albums, a number of which no one will debate pass notability standards.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is disputing Meg's notability as an artist. The issue is that there is no evidence that any of her albums or songs have independent notability - "''...evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity..." (WP:NRVE). ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ <strong style="color:#DC143C;">Speak 23:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Under that supposed standard, tons of album articles on top 10 albums would no longer pass muster. No one is looking for japanese sources, so I hardly believe anyone can tell me every album is non notable.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  01:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As noted by Suriel above, please remember that this discussion is about the notability of the album Maverick - not about Meg the artist or about other stuff. I have no problem reading Japanese, and I did indeed try looking for Japanese sources before adding my opinion here. Unfortunately, all I could find were Oricon chart rankings and iTunes or Amazon type retail listings, which I don't consider constitute the in-depth coverage required to satisfy the notability guidelines - hence my "Delete" decision. --DAJF (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is, however, not only about Maverick. We are building an encyclopedia.  Two of Meg's other albums were just kept at AfD, its just completely random if this one was deleted and the others are kept, based on who showed up at AfD.  E.g., just the other day I ran across The Bawdies, extremely notable Japanese band.  It was wrongfully prodded, and then even deleted at Articles for deletion/The Bawdies.  I recreated it because the deletion was simply wrong. I'm tired of seeing such bad outcomes coming out of AfD, its like no one cares about knowledge anyone, we just slavishly apply guidelines without remembering their purpose. /high horse.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  02:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the discussion here is only about the album Maverick. The merits and notability of other stuff can and should be discussed on their respective talk pages or AfD discussion pages. It is quite possible that some albums of a particular artist may be considered sufficiently notable to justify their own articles, while some are not. That is how Wikipedia works. The argument that other album articles were deemed notable so this one must be too, is however not a valid argument (see Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). --DAJF (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of seeing guidelines for notability and inclusion ignored because editors would rather create 20 crap articles that offer nothing of value rather than condensing the viable information into existing articles and thus improving what we already have. I'm tired of seeing bad "no consensus" keeps when the pertinent, per-policy !votes are for deletion. I believe the focus should be on improvement rather than expansion. I'm not a deletionist but I'm certainly in favour of pruning dead leaves. <strong style="color:#9400D2;font-family:comic sans ms;">ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ <strong style="color:#DC143C;">Speak 03:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - charting albums will almost always have reviews in reliable sources. Since to one is claiming to have checked Japanese language music magazines specifically and since I don't speak Japanese (or indeed even know the name of courses to look at), I am willing to assume this is not one of the extremely rare situations where a charting album has zero coverage.  At worst, the content should be merged, but I don't see a need to do so. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as per ThaddeusB's well-reasoned argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2012 (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.